iamcal.com Since May 2000

• Happy new year!
• Newbie topic - May 2016
• Newbie topic - April 2016
• Newbie topic - March 2016
• Newbie topic - February 2016
• Newbie topic - January 2016
• Newbie topic - November 2015
• Newbie topic - August 2015
• Newbie topic - July 2015
• Newbie topic - May 2015
• Newbie topic - April 2015
• Newbie topic - March 2015
• Newbie topic - September 2014
• Newbie topic - December 2014
• Newbie topic - October 2014
• Newbie topic - August 2014
• Newbie topic - July 2014
• Newbie topic - June 2014
• Newbie topic - May 2014
• Hello!

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/3256258...

Firstly the guy was a pervert and deserved to go to prison, probably for longer than he did. He was not convicted of sexual assault he was convicted of taking pictures and exposing himself.

In my opinion he does not deserve to die for this. I thought justice worked in this country by trial and conviction. The silence of the people in the community is disgusting. Simply a reaction by your average Sun reading moron who relies on popular media to do their thinking for them.

I hope that the murdering scum who committed this crime are caught and harshly sentenced.

Would you still be saying the "silence of the people in the community is disgusting" if he had messed about with your child?

Yes i would.

If i go out and murder someone for fiddling with my kid (incidently he wasn't convicted for touching kids) then I become as bad as they are. My anger would be immense but I would not take the law into my own hands.

He had served his time and should have been allowed to live without persecution from idiots like these folk.

What if the murderer was one of the kids he messed about with? What if he messed up their head so much that they tracked him down to try to get some answers but killed him in a fit of rage? Harshly sentenced or counselled? Did he bring it on himself?

/stirring

Then they should be tried for murder.

Eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind. Revenge is not a valid excuse for any crime.

The guy was 78, should have happened forty years earlier.


/likewise

He hadn't done anything 40 years earlier. He had no previous at all.

/stating obvious, looking for arguem...debate.

How do 'convicted paedophile' and 'sex offender' match up with 'He had no previous at all'?

He was convicted when he was in his 70's and served a year for taking pervy pictures and getting his nadger out. Before that he was as innocent as you or I.

Well me anyway :D

/joke

You don't actually know the situation of the "making of indecent pictures". You haven't enough information really.

The situation may have been anything from asking young girls to lift their skirts, to him being the designated photographer for a gang of 2/3 men and he pictured them raping some young girls. The description of his aspect of the crime would be the same.

And would you be more or less inclined to take the law into your hands if you felt it had failed you? If, for instance, he had raped your daughter, but insufficient evidence allowed him to get off? All they could actually PROVE was that he had indecent pictures of her?

There could be a lot more history to it than you realise. Although murder is wrong, admittedly, but there may be more to it than suggested by the way that it was reported.

Ah, ok then, lets call it swift justice then.

What if it was self-defense. What if old Arnie was getting all pissy with the hoover salesman and came at him with a the blunt end of his zimmer frame? The hoover salesman's natural instinct was to smash the old coot's face in with the extendable hose attachment. Tried for murder or manslaughter?

How can you say he was innocent before that?! What a sweeping statement. Maybe he just hadn't been caught before then? With the advances in detection techniques, DNA evidence becoming admissible, etc.

You are trying to trivialise his crimes to make your point, I think...

Brock;

He was only given a year. If he has homemade pictures of a gang of 4 men raping a child then he would have got longer.

Anyway even if he did I still don't think he should be killed. No matter how much more there is to it I don't agree that he should of been killed by the state or by a gang of morons.

How do you know it was a 'gang of morons'? it could have been Leon for all you know.

I'm not trying to trivialise his crime at all.

He is innocent until proven guilty in court. If he is suspected of running the biggest paedophille ring in the world that doesn't make him guilty of it until he is convicted.

Leon didn't bludgeon people to death.

What if noone actually killed him but he smashed his head open like in that CSI episode?

@ilbm

For taking a picture? Don't think so. The other blokes could have got life... You never know, but lets not get too embroiled in a hypothetical argument.

I was making the point that there may have been more to it than we can possibly tell from a small story such as that. I wasn't suggesting that I knew more, just that we should be open to the possibility. If the person who wrote the article felt as strongly as you do, then it could have been 'edited' or written to imply supporting evidence for his/her opinion.

Anyway, as Sul said, we don't actually know he was killed for being a pedo, just that he was one, and none of his neighbours care that he's been killed. You have to watch them vacuum cleaner salesmen...

He's a crafty one that Leon, maybe thats what he wants you to think.

i shall pipe down
i shall pipe down

@brock

Fair enough.

Yes there probably is more to it. I don't believe you should die for any crime though so that doesn't really matter when forming my opinion. What disgusts me is the hero worship his murderers have been getting through comments on the radio all day. I hope they catch the bastards.

And the fools who live in the street;

"See that pedo got what was coming to him. Somebody beat him to death"
"Hooray the streets are safe again"

Idiots.

Didn't say he wasn't guilty russ. Whats your point?

Who? Leon? Bloody french.

Who, pray tell, is the fuckwit?

(But now RUSS changed his post, i look stoopid saying this now, cos it don't make sense!! Bugger.)

how can you say innocent people are innocent? they just haven't been convicted yet!!!!!!



in all seriousness, it's wrong to kill anyone. apart from people who work in emap IT. they're fair game

Fuck my computer/connection is a pile of smegma. Hard to keep up with the conversation!

Humble apologies.

cal.
Yeah, maybe that came out wrong. I was saying that you can't say he suddenly turned pedo-scum at the age of 70 just because of no convictions before that.

@ilbm. i have to say that i wouldn't object to capital punishment for repeat sex offenders and murderers, once the vaguaries of mistrial has been eliminated by being caught more than once, but that's a WHOLE new can of worms/argument...

Murder doesn't stop being murder just because somebody in a suit rubber stamps it. I see what you are saying and it is hard to argue against because the people involved are usually scum. Doesn't give me, or anybody, the right to execute them though.

I reckon we probably mess with natural selection a bit too much with all our technology, and we'll be living in each others pockets before too long.

Multiple murderers and rapists/pedo's etc are obviously malfunctioning humans. Out with the rest of the rubbish then, is my thinking.

You sound like you live slightly further up Morality Avenue than me, though.

My bad.

I think we should stick them all together in this big house and not let them out to mingle with normal society

hang on... that's prison isnt it

Must be a Guardian reader. :P

@Sul.

No prison's the nice hotel thing where they have loads of games and access to tv, and come out later not realising that they were supposed to be being told off and scolded, and that to go back in would be a 'bad thing'.

Too soft by half...

And that comment, of course, is by me - a Sun reader. ;)

"Too soft by half..."

uuuh yeaaaah, prison sounds like a lovely place
:/

"Must be a Guardian reader. :P"

:D

Malfunctioning humans like autistic people? They have been known to hurt folk. So have schizophrenic people. If it is a mental illness then the last thing we should be doing is executing them.

i read that as "just because somebody in a rubber suit stamps it.", which is an altogether different matter

Cleanse the gene pool! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!

oops wrong message board

it *does* sound overly nice to be honest. visiting all the time, day release, good amenities. there are thousands (nay millions?) of people much worse off in this country who *aren't* in prision. i think prision should be somewhere pretty fucking awful (while at the same time upholding basic human rights!)

ilbm

Harsh. Murder is pre-meditated by definition. To convict, intent and understanding of the crime and it's resultant actions must be established. Lack of mental capacity is used as a means to quash a conviction.

I'm not a gun-happy freak! Mental Illness is a treatable and serious as physical. i didn't suggest killing people with a limp, did I!!

but we may as well - they walk slow and annoy me

</gary>

;)

Ouch!

Yeah. Like when everything else has been tried.

"Harsh. Murder is pre-meditated by definition. To convict, intent and understanding of the crime and it's resultant actions must be established. Lack of mental capacity is used as a means to quash a conviction.

I'm not a gun-happy freak! Mental Illness is a treatable and serious as physical. i didn't suggest killing people with a limp, did I!!"

Sorry I didn't mean to be harsh. I was trying to say that if the desire to hump kids or kill people is a result of a mental defect then the person with the defect shouldn't be killed.

I'm glad someone said this - I totally agree. However, a large part of me has a problem with giving convicted murderers, rapists, paedophiles etc. "basic human rights".

A playstation is a basic human right isnt it?

Er, no, Sul, no...

It is pretty awful. You can only leave when they let you. You have to piss in a bucket in the corner. There is the constant threat of rape and physical violence. I admit it sounds no worse than Glasgow but it's still bad :p .

I actually agree that the satellite dishes, tv's and microwaves should be banned. They should still be allowed books, newspapers and the odd game of snooker though.

The idea that some people have of keeping prisoners in squalor and fear makes me feel sick.

Has it never occured to anyone that the whole 'being Bubba's little bitch' thing is exaggerated?

"Has it never occured to anyone that the whole 'being Bubba's little bitch' thing is exaggerated?"

Has it never occured to anyone that the whole "easy life, satalite tv, trips out and loads of fun in prison" thing is exaggerated? (by certain papers)

I know it's probably exagerated but it still happens.

I have a friend that works in a prison.

The good things aren't all that exaggerated, and the bad things are only slightly exaggerated according to her (prison psychologist so gets to hear most of the things that go on).

Prison is supposed to be punishment, and so should be a nasty experience, i reckon. Otherwise it ain't much of a deterrent, is it?

The punishment is restricting your freedom. It is a mark of a civilised society that we can punish people for crimes we consider wrong while still recognising them as human beings. That may we retain the moral high ground.

What catagory prison does she work in?

How about prison as a means of Rehabilitation not just as a punishment?
Nasty Experiences and Rehabilitation don't go hand in hand.

Damn it we need Pre-Cogs!

:D

err - did you even watch the film chay? it ends up with people being wrongly imprisoned

what needs to change is that prision needs to be properly restrictive. less visits (couple of times a year seems find to me). more isolation.

it ends up with people being wrongly imprisoned??

does it?

with the exception of the precogs all the imprisoned people are rightfully imprisoned (based upon the laws of the day)
and the failure of the system is due to human's being bastards not due to a failure of the pre-cog

(plus the ! and the :D should give the impression that i was being lighthearted in an otherwise depressing and rather dull thread)

same old arguments.
except this time we have it in stereo threads (TM)

whether the precogs are right or not isn't the point - because their "visions" are taken to be 100% true, someone faking one of their visions, etc, means that people can be wrongly convicted

plus when you consider what the title of the film was, is shows that the precogs often disagreed :/

it was ok if the disagreed, thats what the true Minority Report was for. though in those cases, I personally would not lock the people up if there was any doubt.

their visions are unfakeable, it was humans that didnt spot the error.
:)

To the earlier poster who said that it's still murder even if it's government sanctioned (eg. if it was a death penalty) - wrong. Murder is the "unlawful" killing of another. If it's a war, or it's capital punishment it is done lawfully, therefore it's not murder - it's lawful killing.

Bugger! Missed that one!

Good point. Where were you when i was getting whipped earlier for being a death-mongerer?

EDIT: Oh shit. Are the stupid club accepting new members?

wrong thread.

"To the earlier poster who said that it's still murder even if it's government sanctioned (eg. if it was a death penalty) - wrong. Murder is the "unlawful" killing of another. If it's a war, or it's capital punishment it is done lawfully, therefore it's not murder - it's lawful killing."

I didn't actually mean in a legal sense. I think I managed to figure out that an execution is considered legal all by myself. However, morally it is still wrong. You have no right to take somebodies life, regardless of what they have done. Using murder to try and control murder makes as much sense as trying to rid the world of terrorists by bombing terrorists. None.

But of course, the actual meaning of 'morality', apart from a basic framework, varies between people and cultures.

That is true.

wouldn't it be cool if like everyone had like chips implanted in their brains that like totally incapacitated them if they tried to harm another person, you know, like spike the vampire from buffy.. yeah that'd be like totally cool.
or how about a chip that like OHMYGOD like made someone want to kill themselves if they ever killed anyone, so you know, you'd have to totally want to kill someone if you knew it'd mean you died n stuff..
huh.

you know, i think the problem with a lot of iamcal discussions/arguements is that often the people involved try to simplify issues too much and so you just end up with this infuriating back and forth situation.. people should ask more questions instead of just retaliating with blind opinions.. and realise that they are just that, opinions, not facts, as i doubt most people on here have knowledge beyond what they've gained from newspapers.
that'd be nice.
sorry, just had to voice that :)

blind opinions are great though arent they?

i find sweeping generalisations more palatable

everybody loves sweeping generalisations

yes indeed.