Baby Peter - Jason Owen - thinks he's entitled to new Identity

[Pyramid*]

What planet is this man on? Bricking it more like now that he's having to face up to being released in the not too distant future.

funny that... didn't see him giving as much concern for little Peter....

:mad:

The paedophile jailed over the death of Baby P will be free in six weeks and is demanding an expensive new identity.
Jason Owen, 39, who was convicted of causing or allowing the death of Peter Connelly, wants taxpayers to pay for plastic surgery so he can ‘start a new life’ under a different name.
The arsonist and former crack addict will walk free on the fourth anniversary of the death. Yesterday his victim’s family reacted with fury on learning the sadistic lodger wants help to get a seaside council house for his girlfriend and his five children.
At Wandsworth Prison he has told other offenders he is innocent and deserves a fresh start when he is released so that he can work as a personal trainer.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2007144/Baby-P-killer-Jason-Owen-freed-hes-demanding-new-identity.html#ixzz1QAty1nHw

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2007144/Baby-P-killer-Jason-Owen-freed-hes-demanding-new-identity.html

[Livia]

He should be marched out into the middle of a field, stood over a hole and shot in the back of the head. No ceremony, no "I am the Truth and the Light sayeth the Lord.." It's a job I would be happy to do.

[Niamh.]

4 years is all Peters life was worth? and he's going back to care for 5 children?

[MTVN]

He should be marched out into the middle of a field, stood over a hole and shot in the back of the head. No ceremony, no "I am the Truth and the Light sayeth the Lord.." It's a job I would be happy to do.

Alright we're not fighting some war here

[InOne]

Society deserves to be protected from people like him

[Niamh.]

Society deserves to be protected from people like him

Absolutely.

[Livia]

Alright we're not fighting some war here

What? You think I'm maybe being too harsh? I'm saying that people like him don't deserve to live and should be executed with the minimum fuss.

[MTVN]

What? You think I'm maybe being too harsh? I'm saying that people like him don't deserve to live and should be executed with the minimum fuss.

Sounds like the sort of punishment they use to give to a deserter in a war, or when they're executing one of the enemy, standing them in front of a ditch and putting a bullet in the back of the head. And yes, I'm against the death penalty & so I wouldnt support it myself.

[Livia]

Sounds like the sort of punishment they use to give to a deserter in a war, or when they're executing one of the enemy, standing them in front of a ditch and putting a bullet in the back of the head. And yes, I'm against the death penalty & so I wouldnt support it myself.

I'm surprised, considering what this excuse for a man did, that your first thought is that I'm being too harsh.

Your prerogative though. Me? I'd shoot him and save us all a few decades worth of the cash we'd pay to keep him.

[MTVN]

I'm surprised, considering what this excuse for a man did, that your first thought is that I'm being too harsh.

Your prerogative though. Me? I'd shoot him and save us all a few decades worth of the cash we'd pay to keep him.

It wasn't my first thought when I read the story, although yes my first thought when I read your post was that a military style execution didnt really seem very appropiate.

[Livia]

It wasn't my first thought when I read the story, although yes my first thought when I read your post was that a military style execution didnt really seem very appropiate.

I'm not really au fait with what's appropriate for a child murderer. It was a gut reaction. What I was trying to get across was that, even in places where the death sentence exists, it's surrounded by a certain amount of performance. Years of appeals and finally a priest, a press gallery, an audience etc. A quick bullet in the head then throw some dirt over him. Seems more approriate. And it'd stop the years of hand-wringing by the bleeding hearts and liberals who think he has a right to a normal life after even after the monstrous things he did.

[Ammi]

After 17 months of unimaginable cruelty, Baby P finally succumbedAdam Fresco
When the infant known in court only as Baby P was brought home from hospital days after his birth in March 2006, it was as a bubbly, blue-eyed boy with the first signs of curly blond hair. He was, according to those who came into contact with him, a lively child with a ready smile.

After 17 months enduring abuse of an almost unimaginable cruelty, the boy had been reduced to a nervous wreck, his hair shaved to the scalp and his body covered in bruises and scabs. Physical injuries included eight broken ribs, a broken back and the missing top of a finger, while the emotional damage was almost incalculable. Despite it all, Baby P was said to have still attempted a smile.

The jury was told that details of the intervening months, leading to the baby’s death last August, would “fill [them] with revulsion”. But even this could not prepare jurors — one of whom could not hold back tears — for one of the worst cases of sadistic brutality and sordid child neglect to come before a British court.

Baby P’s life in a council flat in Haringey, North London, began with gradual and growing neglect at the hands of his mother, who would leave him unattended for hours in his cot. The overweight woman, who had never had a full-time job and spent hours trawling the internet for pornography, split from the boy’s natural father when he was 3 months old after affairs with two men.

When the second lover moved in, Baby P’s suffering increased dramatically. The court heard that while his mother gossiped with friends in online chat rooms, her boyfriend took to beating the boy, swinging him around by the neck or legs and pinching him.

The Times has been told that the man, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, forced Baby P to follow commands like a dog. At the click of a finger he would have to sit with his head bent between his legs; 20 minutes later a second click would be the signal that he could sit upright again.

A second man, Jason Owen, also subjected the boy to similar abuse. Owen, who stayed at the house for five weeks with his 15-year-old girlfriend, was found guilty with the boyfriend of causing or allowing the death of a child. The mother admitted her guilt at an earlier hearing.

Police were told that the boyfriend, a 32-year-old collector of Nazi memorabilia, wanted to “toughen him up”. Other routines included placing the baby on a stool and spinning it around until he fell off.

The authorities had first voiced concerns about possible abuse by October 2006, when a GP noticed marks on the boy. But his mother, in the first of many episodes of deception and false reassurances, insisted she had found that his skin “bruised easily”.

Two months later the GP sent the pair to the Whittington Hospital, North London, after inspecting a head injury. Insisting that her child was “a head-banger” fond of “rough and tumble play”, the mother claimed that fingermarks were merely the result of when he was caught after being lovingly held and thrown into the air.

Social services were informed and visited the flat, which was found to be dirty, untidy and smelling of urine. They learnt that it was shared with the boy’s grandmother and three dogs, including a rottweiler, but remained unaware that it also harboured a violent boyfriend. They decided to let the child stay with a family friend while police inquiries continued.

A month later, in January 2007, with no decision made on any charge against either woman, the boy was allowed back home. As he grew too old for milk and jars of baby food, Baby P scavenged bits of broken biscuits from older children and was even seen eating dirt in the garden. Detectives found that after the boyfriend moved in there was not one piece of the boy’s clothing that was not spattered with blood


Appropriate or not I agree with Livia, I can't believe there's a parent out there who wouldn't

[MTVN]

I'm not really au fait with what's appropriate for a child murderer. It was a gut reaction. What I was trying to get across was that, even in places where the death sentence exists, it's surrounded by a certain amount of performance. Years of appeals and finally a priest, a press gallery, an audience etc. A quick bullet in the head then throw some dirt over him. Seems more approriate. And it'd stop the years of hand-wringing by the bleeding hearts and liberals who think he has a right to a normal life after even after the monstrous things he did.

He might have played some part in the death but it's important to remember he was charged with "causing or allowing the death", he has not been charged with murder or even manslaughter. Let's not sensationalise & overemotionalise things here.

And yes those things are called due process, it's the foundations of our justice sytem, and while I'm against the death penalty in all cases if it were to be implemented I'd like the offender to at least have his basic rights & dignity respected.

[InOne]

Let's not get into the capital punishment thing again please :nono: It's an impossible argument lol

[Vicky.]

He'll probably get it too.

Damn soft 'justice' system

[Tom4784]

I'm with MTVN on this one. The whole point of our Justice system is that we're better then the criminals we punish, shooting someone in a ditch is hardly a good example of that. It's an emotional response that has no place in justice. It's misguided and pointless to call vengeance justice and not enough people can make that distinction. If you want to talk law or justice then leave your emotions at the door.

[InOne]

They should build a whole unit for pervered sexual psychopaths and violent paedophiles. And put money into studying them. And try sift out the one's that are willing to help and talk openly. Killing them won't stop Paedophiles being born and nor will it stop paedophiles acting out.

[bbfan1991]

^ Probably, that would be so unfair (quote TM: Susan Ma):mad:.

[Vicky.]

Or just stick em all on a deserted island somewhere. Less cost, less risk, and they are among people the same as themselves, and out of the way of normal people. Hopefully a few get attacked by wild animals or something too, make it a bit sweeter :)

[bbfan1991]

Put all people like that and paedophiles in a cage for the lions to eat:devil:.

[InOne]

Or just stick em all on a deserted island somewhere. Less cost, less risk, and they are among people the same as themselves, and out of the way of normal people. Hopefully a few get attacked by wild animals or something too, make it a bit sweeter :)

We tried that before and it **** on us. See Australia :tongue:

[Pyramid*]

After 17 months of unimaginable cruelty, Baby P finally succumbedAdam Fresco
When the infant known in court only as Baby P was brought home from hospital days after his birth in March 2006, it was as a bubbly, blue-eyed boy with the first signs of curly blond hair. He was, according to those who came into contact with him, a lively child with a ready smile.

After 17 months enduring abuse of an almost unimaginable cruelty, the boy had been reduced to a nervous wreck, his hair shaved to the scalp and his body covered in bruises and scabs. Physical injuries included eight broken ribs, a broken back and the missing top of a finger, while the emotional damage was almost incalculable. Despite it all, Baby P was said to have still attempted a smile.

The jury was told that details of the intervening months, leading to the baby’s death last August, would “fill [them] with revulsion”. But even this could not prepare jurors — one of whom could not hold back tears — for one of the worst cases of sadistic brutality and sordid child neglect to come before a British court.

Baby P’s life in a council flat in Haringey, North London, began with gradual and growing neglect at the hands of his mother, who would leave him unattended for hours in his cot. The overweight woman, who had never had a full-time job and spent hours trawling the internet for pornography, split from the boy’s natural father when he was 3 months old after affairs with two men.

When the second lover moved in, Baby P’s suffering increased dramatically. The court heard that while his mother gossiped with friends in online chat rooms, her boyfriend took to beating the boy, swinging him around by the neck or legs and pinching him.

The Times has been told that the man, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, forced Baby P to follow commands like a dog. At the click of a finger he would have to sit with his head bent between his legs; 20 minutes later a second click would be the signal that he could sit upright again.

A second man, Jason Owen, also subjected the boy to similar abuse. Owen, who stayed at the house for five weeks with his 15-year-old girlfriend, was found guilty with the boyfriend of causing or allowing the death of a child. The mother admitted her guilt at an earlier hearing.

Police were told that the boyfriend, a 32-year-old collector of Nazi memorabilia, wanted to “toughen him up”. Other routines included placing the baby on a stool and spinning it around until he fell off.

The authorities had first voiced concerns about possible abuse by October 2006, when a GP noticed marks on the boy. But his mother, in the first of many episodes of deception and false reassurances, insisted she had found that his skin “bruised easily”.

Two months later the GP sent the pair to the Whittington Hospital, North London, after inspecting a head injury. Insisting that her child was “a head-banger” fond of “rough and tumble play”, the mother claimed that fingermarks were merely the result of when he was caught after being lovingly held and thrown into the air.

Social services were informed and visited the flat, which was found to be dirty, untidy and smelling of urine. They learnt that it was shared with the boy’s grandmother and three dogs, including a rottweiler, but remained unaware that it also harboured a violent boyfriend. They decided to let the child stay with a family friend while police inquiries continued.

A month later, in January 2007, with no decision made on any charge against either woman, the boy was allowed back home. As he grew too old for milk and jars of baby food, Baby P scavenged bits of broken biscuits from older children and was even seen eating dirt in the garden. Detectives found that after the boyfriend moved in there was not one piece of the boy’s clothing that was not spattered with blood


Appropriate or not I agree with Livia, I can't believe there's a parent out there who wouldn't

Whilst Livia's post may have been a bit on the 'brutal' side..... I really can't see how anyone wouldn't feel that such action (whether tempered a little or not to suit the pc /HR brigade) - is quite deserved for the likes of the pond life.

[Pyramid*]

He might have played some part in the death but it's important to remember he was charged with "causing or allowing the death", he has not been charged with murder or even manslaughter. Let's not sensationalise & overemotionalise things here.

And yes those things are called due process, it's the foundations of our justice sytem, and while I'm against the death penalty in all cases if it were to be implemented I'd like the offender to at least have his basic rights & dignity respected.

I am going to ask a very serious question to you: "Why do you think the offender should be offered his basic rights and his dignity respected" - given his involvment in the abuse and toture of Baby Peter?

Why on earth do you feel that this abusive man who inflicted torture upon a defenceless toddler should be treated with dignity? Where or why should he be afforded dignity to be bestowed upon him. Because he is a human being....and let's forget about what the nature of the man is?

Good grief.

[MTVN]

I am going to ask a very serious question to you: "Why do you think the offender should be offered his basic rights and his dignity respected" - given his involvment in the abuse and toture of Baby Peter?

Why on earth do you feel that this abusive man who inflicted torture upon a defenceless toddler should be treated with dignity? Where or why should he be afforded dignity to be bestowed upon him. Because he is a human being....and let's forget about what the nature of the man is?

Good grief.

Yes because he's a human being, and because if you deprive him of basic human rights then who are you to preach them to people and to encourage their adherence? Like Dezzy said, if you want to talk law or justice then you have to leave emotions at the door, you can't just be guided by anger and a desire for vengeance.

[Pyramid*]

Yes because he's a human being, and because if you deprive him of basic human rights then who are you to preach them to people and to encourage their adherence? Like Dezzy said, if you want to talk law or justice then you have to leave emotions at the door, you can't just be guided by anger and a desire for vengeance.

so we should allow basic HR and dignity to be applied - regardless of the inherrently evil nature of a person?

Being a human being does not equate to being afforded liberties automatically, upon only of reason that one is 'a human being'.

One has to act, behave in a way that is relative. I totally disagree with you.

That is equivalent to stating that a domestic pet, say for example a dog, a violent dog with a history of appalling behaviour, of attacking others - should not be put down. Such a dog is also a living thing but I bet you'd agree that it would be put down if it's behaviour was of such a repeated nature.

It lives and breathes. Same as a human being. Being human does not mean that human rights should automatically apply. If such a human being cannot afford another any HR or dignity: they should not expect to automatically be afforded the same respect or consideration.

That's my view and I don't expect you to concur.

[Vicky.]

I dont give a **** about his rights to be honest. Commit a crime like that, you dont deserve anything.

I agree with livia and pyramid.

And I dont understand how people can be so...understanding...about a monster who did what he did :/

[Pyramid*]

I dont give a **** about his rights to be honest. Commit a crime like that, you dont deserve anything.

I agree with livia and pyramid.

And I dont understand how people can be so...understanding...about a monster who did what he did :/

If I am very honest Vicky. Neither do I. This pondlife has shown no regard for the HR, dignity or respect for a defenceless toddler to whom he helped inflict the most awful abuse and torture.

Why anyone would feel he deserves the very basic fundamental right that he refused such an innocent child... horrifies me. In fact, it sickens me.

[joeysteele]

He should be marched out into the middle of a field, stood over a hole and shot in the back of the head. No ceremony, no "I am the Truth and the Light sayeth the Lord.." It's a job I would be happy to do.

I am not an advocate for the death penalty but this case has as has others, made me feel really sick.

I really think these people are so inhuman they lose the right to be classed as human.On this one I am with you Livia and I am sick and tired of these toddlers suffering so inhumanely at the hands of elders who should be actually protecting them and keeping them safe.

There are no morals or decency about people who can do this to a child and end the child's life too.There is not a word in any language rotten enough to describe the torture these scum put this child through.

[patsylimerick]

My head's with In One but my heaert's with Pyramid and Livia. I would prefer someone like this to be killed, if I'm brutally honest. But I do understand the argument that 'we' are then surrendering the moral authority. It really bothers me, though, when it comes to this kind of crime. There are no words for how abhorrent it is. Maybe In One's idea would work. But the conditions would have to be fairly grim. This kind of behaviour should not be rewarded with hand-holding, liberal nonsense. There is certainly a dearth of consequences in our modern society, if violent crime rates are anything to go by. These people are afraid of no-one and nothing and have no compunction or empathy. So how DO we stop this kind of thing happening without the ultimate punishment?

[joeysteele]

If I am very honest Vicky. Neither do I. This pondlife has shown no regard for the HR, dignity or respect for a defenceless toddler to whom he helped inflict the most awful abuse and torture.

Why anyone would feel he deserves the very basic fundamental right that he refused such an innocent child... horrifies me. In fact, it sickens me.

There's not one single justifiable point to disagree with you on this post Pyramid,I couldn't agree more.

[Ammi]

Whatever we feel he deserves, of course there is no death penalty and he will be released and I think Pyramid's question was should he be given a new identity at the considerable cost to us. As far as I am concerned he can rot in hell because that's what Baby P did, they left him to rot in a living hell until his body found peace. That may sound harsh, inappropriate, inhumane, well those are words that describe him perfectly and sometimes in life there is no compassion left.

[Pyramid*]

Whatever we feel he deserves, of course there is no death penalty and he will be released and I think Pyramid's question was should he be given a new identity at the considerable cost to us. As far as I am concerned he can rot in hell because that's what Baby P did, they left him to rot in a living hell until his body found peace. That may sound harsh, inappropriate, inhumane, well those are words that describe him perfectly and sometimes in life there is no compassion left.


Thanks for reining in the natural emotions that many of us are feeling and venting.

That indeed was the matter in hand.

I happen to agree - as I said in my OP - he made his bloody bed: he can lie in it when 'freedom ' comes - and take the consequences. without being given right to a new life or anonymity.

[MTVN]

If I am very honest Vicky. Neither do I. This pondlife has shown no regard for the HR, dignity or respect for a defenceless toddler to whom he helped inflict the most awful abuse and torture.

Why anyone would feel he deserves the very basic fundamental right that he refused such an innocent child... horrifies me. In fact, it sickens me.

That's funny, I find it "sickens" me when people use pure bloodlust as their basis for a suitable punishment but there we go.

[Vicky.]

That's funny, I find it "sickens" me when people use pure bloodlust as their basis for a suitable punishment but there we go.

OK I usually agree with you on most things, but do you really think 5 years in prison and then a new identity...free to live a new(probably better) life...is suitable punishment for what he did?

[Pyramid*]

That's funny, I find it "sickens" me when people use pure bloodlust as their basis for a suitable punishment but there we go.

I find it funny that out of all the numerous other forum members that felt very much the same as I did....and posted to this effect, that you would choose to single out only my own post.

mmmm..... ;)

[Tom4784]

I dont give a **** about his rights to be honest. Commit a crime like that, you dont deserve anything.

I agree with livia and pyramid.

And I dont understand how people can be so...understanding...about a monster who did what he did :/

Because the world would be a much worse place if Mob Justice was the norm. There has to be a standard to uphold or we might as well give into chaos.

[MTVN]

OK I usually agree with you on most things, but do you really think 5 years in prison and then a new identity...free to live a new(probably better) life...is suitable punishment for what he did?

No, not really. I think the guy's a scumbag and I doubt he feels remorse for his actions and I doubt he's been rehabilitated so I'd rather he wasn't released until he's show true remorse and there's sufficient evidence that he'll no longer pose so big a threat. But I don't agree with the death penalty and I don't think I can support depriving someone of basic human rights, that sets quite a dangerous precedent, it'd be hypocritical to do it and I dont think we have any right to do it and stoop down to that level.

Don't get me wrong I can understand the hatred towards him but I don't appreciate Pyramid saying that's she's sickened because I oppose capital punishment and the disregarding of human rights.

[Ammi]

No, not really. I think the guy's a scumbag and I doubt he feels remorse for his actions and I doubt he's been rehabilitated so I'd rather he wasn't released until he's show true remorse and there's sufficient evidence that he'll no longer pose so big a threat. But I don't agree with the death penalty and I don't think I can support depriving someone of basic human rights, that sets quite a dangerous precedent, it'd be hypocritical to do it and I dont think we have any right to do it and stoop down to that level.

Don't get me wrong I can understand the hatred towards him but I don't appreciate Pyramid saying that's she's sickened because I oppose capital punishment and the disregarding of human rights.

I do understand what you're saying but the thread is really about whether he is entitled to a new identity, at our expense. I am guilty as anyone for becoming too emotional on the subject of what I would like to do to him because its very hard, as a parent to not think....if someone did this to my child and I am sure that's how Pyramid feels too, as any parent out there would. I understand that abhores you but it is very hard to not feel emotional about this. Good we have forums to do this so we don't go round killing each other

[Pyramid*]

I'm with MTVN on this one. The whole point of our Justice system is that we're better then the criminals we punish, shooting someone in a ditch is hardly a good example of that. It's an emotional response that has no place in justice. It's misguided and pointless to call vengeance justice and not enough people can make that distinction. If you want to talk law or justice then leave your emotions at the door.

Because the world would be a much worse place if Mob Justice was the norm. There has to be a standard to uphold or we might as well give into chaos.


With your comments above then, and taking into consideration my opening post: does this mean that you agree that this scumbag should be given a new identity, fresh start, home, job etc all at the cost of the taxpayer.

If not: may I ask what you feel should be the appropriate way forward? Do you feel that having served 4 years for the torturous abuse this man (and others) inflicted upon an innocent, defenceless young todder - is adequate punishment.

Are you of the view that having served 'his time', that he should be allowed to come out of jail, and simpy 'get on with his life', uninterrupted,without issue. ?

[Vicky.]

The whole 'justice' system needs a complete overhaul tbh.

And none of this new identity crap. People should learn to live with their crimes. If this means they get a few beatings in the street or whatever when they are let out, so be it. Its a consequence of being a sick ****.

[Vicky.]

The whole 'justice' system needs a complete overhaul tbh.

And none of this new identity crap. People should learn to live with their crimes. If this means they get a few beatings in the street or whatever when they are let out, so be it. Its a consequence of being a sick ****.

[Pyramid*]

No, not really. I think the guy's a scumbag and I doubt he feels remorse for his actions and I doubt he's been rehabilitated so I'd rather he wasn't released until he's show true remorse and there's sufficient evidence that he'll no longer pose so big a threat. But I don't agree with the death penalty and I don't think I can support depriving someone of basic human rights, that sets quite a dangerous precedent, it'd be hypocritical to do it and I dont think we have any right to do it and stoop down to that level.

Don't get me wrong I can understand the hatred towards him but I don't appreciate Pyramid saying that's she's sickened because I oppose capital punishment and the disregarding of human rights.

To be honest with you, it's really not of any concern to me (or indeed anyone) whether you appreciate my view or not. That's your own subjective viewpoint. It does not negate my right to disagree with you for all of the reasons I have previously submitted.

[Pyramid*]

The whole 'justice' system needs a complete overhaul tbh.

And none of this new identity crap. People should learn to live with their crimes. If this means they get a few beatings in the street or whatever when they are let out, so be it. Its a consequence of being a sick ****.

Agree. 100%.

They made their bed. Let them lie in it. Regardless.

What goes around, comes around. (especially as far as the laughing stock that is the British Justice System is concerned)

[Stu]

Just throw him in a nice, clean cell with three solid meals and a half hour stroll in a concrete yard a day for the rest of his life.

It's more than enough punishment. He will have god knows how many years to slowly rot away in agonising, torturous, sanitised boredom. Don't ever let him out and just reduce him to a number. It's a cheaper death penalty without having blood on our hands. I do not think it's healthy for a nation to legislate murder no matter what the circumstances. I know it's dissapointing for the legion of tabloid gobblers totally unaffected by it who want something to go with their Sky News and grim convorsations because the soaps don't start till' seven.

[Pyramid*]

Just throw him in a nice, clean cell with three solid meals and a half hour stroll in a concrete yard a day for the rest of his life.

It's more than enough punishment. He will have god knows how many years to slowly rot away in agonising, torturous, sanitised boredom. Don't ever let him out and just reduce him to a number. It's a cheaper death penalty without having blood on our hands. I do not think it's healthy for a nation to legislate murder no matter what the circumstances. I know it's dissapointing for the legion of tabloid gobblers totally unaffected by it who want something to go with their Sky News and grim convorsations because the soaps don't start till' seven.

Why the hell should the hard working tax payers money be used to help feed, cloth and house scum like this?

Damn sure I'm bloody not happy about paying my ever increasing taxes to keep low life this this fed, watered and with a roof over their heads.

Perhaps those who don't actually contribute work for a living or pay taxes via PAYE , who aren't working might be happy with this, but I can tell you right now: I seriously object to my hard earned pounds being used in this manner.

[Vicky.]

I work, and pay taxes(a lot of them :bored: ) and I would be happy if scum like that got LIFE in prison. Thats real life mind, as in they die there...not life as in the paltry 7 years or whatever they serve at the minute.

[Stu]

Why the hell should the hard working tax payers money be used to help feed, cloth and house scum like this?

Damn sure I'm bloody not happy about paying my ever increasing taxes to keep low life this this fed, watered and with a roof over their heads.
Because it would cost less than all the red tape involved in capital punishment. Red tape you can't remove. We are a civilised society and no matter how uncivilised he was this pipe dream of being able to simply cap him off and bury his ass gangland style will not happen.

That leaves us with no other choice. So it's just something that has to happen, isin't it. This visceral 'MY MONEY IS PAYING FOR MONSTERS!' personalisation people make for whatever fraction of a penny they are paying towards a single prisoner is so annoying.

Your tax goes ****ing everywhere. It's how society works. It has to happen. You're also paying for burglars, rapists, unemployed sofa shaggers and all manner of vagabonds and layabouts.

Perhaps those who don't actually contribute work for a living or pay taxes via PAYE , who aren't working might be happy with this, but I can tell you right now: I seriously object to my hard earned pounds being used in this manner.
Okay you got me. I'm only sticking up for the kiddie beater because I can't find a job.

A truly needless addition to an otherwise fine post. Having to pay for Myra Hindley's soup all those years must have really torn you up.

[Pyramid*]

I work, and pay taxes(a lot of them :bored: ) and I would be happy if scum like that got LIFE in prison. Thats real life mind, as in they die there...not life as in the paltry 7 years or whatever they serve at the minute.

Wish I could agree with you. I can't.

I object passionately that public money should be spent feeding, clothing and housing such scum. I'd far rather then money went towards schooling, hospitals, care homes and in the thrust of the thread - proper social services care and towards helping victims who have survived such horrors.

[Pyramid*]

Because it would cost less than all the red tape involved in capital punishment. Red tape you can't remove. We are a civilised society and no matter how uncivilised he was this pipe dream of being able to simply cap him off and bury his ass gangland style will not happen.

That leaves us with no other choice. So it's just something that has to happen, isin't it. This visceral 'MY MONEY IS PAYING FOR MONSTERS!' personalisation people make for whatever fraction of a penny they are paying towards a single prisoner is so annoying.

Your tax goes ****ing everywhere. It's how society works. It has to happen. You're also paying for burglars, rapists, unemployed sofa shaggers and all manner of vagabonds and layabouts.


Okay you got me. I'm only sticking up for the kiddie beater because I can't find a job.

A truly needless addition to an otherwise fine post. Having to pay for Myra Hindley's soup all those years must have really torn you up.

I don't believe I have mentioned capital punishment. I have said let him lie in the bed he made upon being freed from jail.

BTW, throwing in a few expletives gives no more weight or credence to your post. It shows that you cannot post without crudity -it's completely uncessary and to make a point, you doing so in the manner you are doing: you are deliberately avoiding the swear filter. ;)

I also did not say my tax money did not fund other areas within society - or that my tax money was soley channelled only towards funding the upkeep of such low life.

As for your personal comment at the very end of your comment, again, quite uncessary and not required.

[Tom4784]

With your comments above then, and taking into consideration my opening post: does this mean that you agree that this scumbag should be given a new identity, fresh start, home, job etc all at the cost of the taxpayer.

If not: may I ask what you feel should be the appropriate way forward? Do you feel that having served 4 years for the torturous abuse this man (and others) inflicted upon an innocent, defenceless young todder - is adequate punishment.

Are you of the view that having served 'his time', that he should be allowed to come out of jail, and simpy 'get on with his life', uninterrupted,without issue. ?

None of the above.

I don't know enough about this story apart from the odd trashy snippet from the tabloids to judge fairly so I won't. As for the new Identity I can see the pros and cons of it. On one hand it'll protect the public from themselves as some idiots would undoubtedly decide to ***** up their own lives and try to dish out some mob justice but on the other hand it could be seen as protecting him. The idea that he'd be living in luxury is a typical hysterical Daily Mail image that, like the newspaper itself, is rarely based on fact. If he was given any protection then it would be under the condition that he'd have to give in to a lot of restrictions and such and given the high profile nature of his crimes he'd be under constant watch.

Whether he gets a new identity or not should depend on whether he's truly been reformed by the end of his sentence, if he is then I don't see a problem with as it would cost more to keep him locked up for life and that way he could eventually contribute to society. Only criminals that truly want to change should be given that level of help though and whether prison will change him or not remains to be seen.

[Stu]

I don't believe I have mentioned capital punishment. I have said let him lie in the bed he made upon being freed from jail.

BTW, throwing in a few expletives gives no more weight or credence to your post. It shows that you cannot post without crudity -it's completely uncessary and to make a point, you doing so in the manner you are doing: you are deliberately avoiding the swear filter. ;)

I also did not say my tax money did not fund other areas within society - or that my tax money was soley channelled only towards funding the upkeep of such low life.

As for your personal comment at the very end of your comment, again, quite uncessary and not required.
I'm well aware that using expletives gives no more weight or creedence to my post. I simply like using them. You can choose to report or ignore them but devoting the largest paragraph of your post to them is frivolous at best given how this thread has nothing to do with Jason Owens well documented love of cussing.

I don't know why you constantly use negatives in lieu of having any arguments to pose. I never denied that you know your money goes elsewhere. I didn't point it out to notify you of this fact. I pointed it out to serve as an argument you have not responded to. Similar to how I know you didn't mention capital punishment. You need to start giving others far more credit and just directly respond to their posts instead of giving them some sort of quasi Roger Ebert style critical evaluations that are baseless, rhetorical and ****ing useless.

My comment at the end was necessary in that it served as a response to your unnecessary comment. It does have a measurable amount of sarcasm in it but guess what ... deal with it and stop pointing out to others how they post.

[Pyramid*]

None of the above.

I don't know enough about this story apart from the odd trashy snippet from the tabloids to judge fairly so I won't. As for the new Identity I can see the pros and cons of it. On one hand it'll protect the public from themselves as some idiots would undoubtedly decide to ***** up their own lives and try to dish out some mob justice but on the other hand it could be seen as protecting him. The idea that he'd be living in luxury is a typical hysterical Daily Mail image that, like the newspaper itself, is rarely based on fact. If he was given any protection then it would be under the condition that he'd have to give in to a lot of restrictions and such and given the high profile nature of his crimes he'd be under constant watch.

Whether he gets a new identity or not should depend on whether he's truly been reformed by the end of his sentence, if he is then I don't see a problem with as it would cost more to keep him locked up for life and that way he could eventually contribute to society. Only criminals that truly want to change should be given that level of help though and whether prison will change him or not remains to be seen.

It 'seems' that if I had quoted something similar from say a broadsheet, you would hold it in higher regard? Given your comments about the DM, (which was very relative in my opening post) and what appears to be disdain on your part for such a source of information, I'm really at a loss then why you would have entered the thread in the first instance - seeing as you feel the DM's articles are rarely based on fact. :conf: sorry but it does seem a little at odds... you are happy to comment on something you feel to be trashy snippet, not based on any fact?

Not withstanding that : may I ask: do you feel someone with Mr Owen's history: would be a changed person after only 4 years 'rehabilitation'? I'm being very genuine in asking you if you do honestly feel that is possible?

[MTVN]

Whether he gets a new identity or not should depend on whether he's truly been reformed by the end of his sentence, if he is then I don't see a problem with as it would cost more to keep him locked up for life and that way he could eventually contribute to society. Only criminals that truly want to change should be given that level of help though and whether prison will change him or not remains to be seen.

That's basically my thoughts on it.

[Pyramid*]

That's basically my thoughts on it.

Putting another child at the possible risk of being subjected to the same horrendous abuse and torture?

[MTVN]

Putting another child at the possible risk of being subjected to the same horrendous abuse and torture?

"Whether he gets a new identity or not should depend on whether he's truly been reformed": for him to be reformed would necessitate him not posing a threat to children.

[Niamh.]

"Whether he gets a new identity or not should depend on whether he's truly been reformed": for him to be reformed would necessitate him not posing a threat to children.

and the only way to test if he's reformed or not is to send him back into society and hope that he doesn't abuse or kill another child.

[Tom4784]

It 'seems' that if I had quoted something similar from say a broadsheet, you would hold it in higher regard? Given your comments about the DM, (which was very relative in my opening post) and what appears to be disdain on your part for such a source of information, I'm really at a loss then why you would have entered the thread in the first instance - seeing as you feel the DM's articles are rarely based on fact. :conf: sorry but it does seem a little at odds... you are happy to comment on something you feel to be trashy snippet, not based on any fact?

Not withstanding that : may I ask: do you feel someone with Mr Owen's history: would be a changed person after only 4 years 'rehabilitation'? I'm being very genuine in asking you if you do honestly feel that is possible?

I would hold it in higher regard as broadsheets generally are better written and just more factual then the average tabloid. As for why I entered the thread, I don't see any mention of a tabloid in the topic title so I'm at a loss of what you're actually talking about here and like i said in the post you've quoted I've not commented on the story since I don't know enough about it. I've only talked about the law system and new identities. I'm not quite sure why you are trying to discredit me by trying to put words in my mouth when you've got my post quoted for everyone to see.

I believe prison can potentially change anyone, those four years will drag painfully for someone like him who will undoubtedly suffer at the hands of other inmates. A hellish experience can change your outlook on things. One of the cornerstones of our Law System is that with most sentences we give people the chance to change eventually, whether they receive any help should depend on their willingness to become a better person. If we let go of the hope that people can be better then we might as well lock up everyone who's done wrong for life which wouldn't work either. The system isn't perfect but it's a lot better then most suggestions I tend to here.

[Pyramid*]

"Whether he gets a new identity or not should depend on whether he's truly been reformed": for him to be reformed would necessitate him not posing a threat to children.

how can the parole board, the powers that be, or the public be assured that he is a reformed character? If he is so 'reformed' and there is absolute proof of this: he should not require any new identity.

Do you honestly feel that 'reformed character or not' - that a person who has inflicted such horror and torture upon a young child, should benefit from the taxpayer paying for his new ID, house, job and all other manner of things that that would entail.

Do you truly feel that the strained public purse and it's very restricted finances should be used for such a new ID - rather than say, for example, being used towards treating sick children / or treating children who have suffered emotionally and physically at the hands of such people. ?

If there was a choice between the monies being spent on the New ID or what I have posed above: what would your preference be?

[Jordan.]

I don't agree with new identities at all. I don't care how reformed someone may claim to be they should be made to live with their actions, especially in this case where a whole life has been taken away before it even properly started. Why should he get his back after a few lousy years? Its a complete joke.

[Tom4784]

where does this idea come from that he'd be given some sort of luxurious come from? He'd be given a dive to live in and a dead end job that he'd have to keep up due to the agreements he'd make upon getting a new identity. He'd be under severe restrictions and he'd always be watched. He's not gonna get some executive position and a penthouse to live in at the expense of the taxpayer.

[Vicky.]

So hed be given a **** house, and a **** job...more than some people have who havent committed crimes :/

[MTVN]

and the only way to test if he's reformed or not is to send him back into society and hope that he doesn't abuse or kill another child.

Well there is evidence that rehabilitation can be successful, and if we ever want to let any prisoners out of jail and have them integrate back into society then the process is essential, we cant keep everyone in jail if it goes against strong evidence of rehabilitation in fear of recidivism.

Pyramid - I'm off out now so I'll try and reply to your post later

[Tom4784]

So hed be given a **** house, and a **** job...more than some people have who havent committed crimes :/

You're failing to see the subtleties, he'd have such a restricted life that it'd be like prison but with different scenery. I've read about what goes into these new identities and they aren't a get out of jail free card.

[Pyramid*]

I would hold it in higher regard as broadsheets generally are better written and just more factual then the average tabloid. As for why I entered the thread, I don't see any mention of a tabloid in the topic title so I'm at a loss of what you're actually talking about here and like i said in the post you've quoted I've not commented on the story since I don't know enough about it. I've only talked about the law system and new identities. I'm not quite sure why you are trying to discredit me by trying to put words in my mouth when you've got my post quoted for everyone to see.

I believe prison can potentially change anyone, those four years will drag painfully for someone like him who will undoubtedly suffer at the hands of other inmates. A hellish experience can change your outlook on things. One of the cornerstones of our Law System is that with most sentences we give people the chance to change eventually, whether they receive any help should depend on their willingness to become a better person. If we let go of the hope that people can be better then we might as well lock up everyone who's done wrong for life which wouldn't work either. The system isn't perfect but it's a lot better then most suggestions I tend to here.


What planet is this man on? Bricking it more like now that he's having to face up to being released in the not too distant future.

funny that... didn't see him giving as much concern for little Peter....

:mad:


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2007144/Baby-P-killer-Jason-Owen-freed-hes-demanding-new-identity.html#ixzz1QAty1nHw (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2007144/Baby-P-killer-Jason-Owen-freed-hes-demanding-new-identity.html#ixzz1QAty1nHw)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2007144/Baby-P-killer-Jason-Owen-freed-hes-demanding-new-identity.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2007144/Baby-P-killer-Jason-Owen-freed-hes-demanding-new-identity.html)

.

My opening post.....gives links to the source. Aside which, you must have read either that or subsequent posts - because you yourself referred to typical hysterical Daily Mail image that, like the newspaper itself, is rarely based on fact .... I am not trying to discredit you Dezzy - but to pretend that you didn't realise there was any reference to the DM link - because I didn't quote it in the thread title, seem a bit of a moot point

I can possibly understand your thoughts that Owen would have suffered in prison - but that isn't altogether a certaintly - especially as such prisoners tend to be isolated - for their own safety. I perhaps wish I had the faith that you have, that 4 years would turn this man around. Regrettably, I personally don't have that same belief.

[Pyramid*]

Well there is evidence that rehabilitation can be successful, and if we ever want to let any prisoners out of jail and have them integrate back into society then the process is essential, we cant keep everyone in jail if it goes against strong evidence of rehabilitation in fear of recidivism.

Pyramid - I'm off out now so I'll try and reply to your post later

cheers for now.. have a nice night... catch up later at some point. Enjoy! :blush:

[Pyramid*]

where does this idea come from that he'd be given some sort of luxurious come from? He'd be given a dive to live in and a dead end job that he'd have to keep up due to the agreements he'd make upon getting a new identity. He'd be under severe restrictions and he'd always be watched. He's not gonna get some executive position and a penthouse to live in at the expense of the taxpayer.

Who said anything about some sort of 'luxurious'? Who inferred he was going to be given any executive postion or penthouse. Not one person as far as I can see. If ever I saw an example of trying to throw a curve ball ...this really has to be it.

There are many homeless people who are far more deserving of being given a home. There are many people on the dole who are far more willing to work and simply cannot get a job - who deserve to be immediately placed in employement than scumbags like this man.

Why should low life like this be allowed such things when other more deserved in society, who may have committed no crime at all, far less an henious crime such as this man committed, be overlooked in favour of a child abuser and paedophile?

[Niamh.]

Well there is evidence that rehabilitation can be successful, and if we ever want to let any prisoners out of jail and have them integrate back into society then the process is essential, we cant keep everyone in jail if it goes against strong evidence of rehabilitation in fear of recidivism.

Pyramid - I'm off out now so I'll try and reply to your post later

For fear of recidivism?? You make the abuse, torture and murder of a baby sound so trivial. I'm all for rehabilitating thieves etc but child abusers and murders?? I'm sorry but no innocent child is worth taking that risk imo.

[Vicky.]

A bit off topic but...you know if someone with a new identity gets married? Would the partner be told who they are?

I say this because I remember when all that jon venables stuff was rife...I remember reading that he had a fiance...Imagine being married to an evil twat like that and not knowing about it D:

I assume they would have to be told...for if they had kids or something, but they probably wouldnt be :/

(I am aware you could marry an unconvicted serial killer or something before anyone says :p)

[Pyramid*]

A bit off topic but...you know if someone with a new identity gets married? Would the partner be told who they are?

I say this because I remember when all that jon venables stuff was rife...I remember reading that he had a fiance...Imagine being married to an evil twat like that and not knowing about it D:

I assume they would have to be told...for if they had kids or something, but they probably wouldnt be :/

(I am aware you could marry an unconvicted serial killer or something before anyone says :p)

I am quite positive that it is against all conditions for true id to be revealed - even to marriage partners etc. Doing so, compromises the very nature of the new ID (ie; the more people who know, the more chance of it being revealed) - it is one of the conditions upon which the person receiving the ID is made very aware of.

[Tom4784]

My opening post.....gives links to the source. Aside which, you must have read either that or subsequent posts - because you yourself referred to .... I am not trying to discredit you Dezzy - but to pretend that you didn't realise there was any reference to the DM link - because I didn't quote it in the thread title, seem a bit of a moot point

I can possibly understand your thoughts that Owen would have suffered in prison - but that isn't altogether a certaintly - especially as such prisoners tend to be isolated - for their own safety. I perhaps wish I had the faith that you have, that 4 years would turn this man around. Regrettably, I personally don't have that same belief.

You asked why I came into this thread if the article was from a tabloid, well I couldn't exactly decipher that from the thread title when I clicked on it and my first post was a response to Livia's rather then the OP. i've not commentated on the actual story directly and the stuff about the Daily Mail was OBVIOUSLY a general example, one I often mention in these discussions.

[Vicky.]

I am quite positive that it is against all conditions for true id to be revealed - even to marriage partners etc.

So if they had kids, would they be took off them and the partner not told why? Or would they just allow the kids to remain with a killer

[Pyramid*]

You asked why I came into this thread if the article was from a tabloid, well I couldn't exactly decipher that from the thread title when I clicked on it and my first post was a response to Livia's rather then the OP. i've not commentated on the actual story directly and the stuff about the Daily Mail was OBVIOUSLY a general example, one I often mention in these discussions.

Fair comment. Seems very odd to enter a thread yet know nothing about what it is discussing, nor taking into account anything that has been said in relation to the very article in question that started the topic off, but opt to select one random post to address without being aware of the discussion on the thread. :conf: But hey, each to their own, live and let live as they say.

[Pyramid*]

So if they had kids, would they be took off them and the partner not told why? Or would they just allow the kids to remain with a killer

I'm not sure Vicky. In such a case as this: I would think there would be conditions (and pretty strict ones) in respect of children - whether the partner's existing ones - or whether starting a family may be allowed? :conf:

Actually...that's a pretty interesting spin off you've put up..... you've got me wondering about that side now.

[Vicky.]

Comes down to...again...who has more rights. Kids or killers I guess.

[Pyramid*]

Comes down to...again...who has more rights. Kids or killers I guess.

Victims don't have rights in the UK. Only the flipping abusers and criminals. :(

[patsylimerick]

Just throw him in a nice, clean cell with three solid meals and a half hour stroll in a concrete yard a day for the rest of his life.

It's more than enough punishment. He will have god knows how many years to slowly rot away in agonising, torturous, sanitised boredom. Don't ever let him out and just reduce him to a number. It's a cheaper death penalty without having blood on our hands. I do not think it's healthy for a nation to legislate murder no matter what the circumstances. I know it's dissapointing for the legion of tabloid gobblers totally unaffected by it who want something to go with their Sky News and grim convorsations because the soaps don't start till' seven.

Sounds good to me.

I don't agree with new identities at all. I don't care how reformed someone may claim to be they should be made to live with their actions, especially in this case where a whole life has been taken away before it even properly started. Why should he get his back after a few lousy years? Its a complete joke.

Yes, exactly.

Well there is evidence that rehabilitation can be successful, and if we ever want to let any prisoners out of jail and have them integrate back into society then the process is essential, we cant keep everyone in jail if it goes against strong evidence of rehabilitation in fear of recidivism.

Pyramid - I'm off out now so I'll try and reply to your post later

Two things. First, I firmly believe, and I think we've discussed this before, that some people are just rotten and without empathy and out of control and will NEVER be rehabilitated to a sufficient level to safely allow them access to potential victims.
Second, even if it were possible to rehabilitate someone who does something like this, they don't deserve it. Back to Stu's suggestion, I think.

[Tom4784]

Fair comment. Seems very odd to enter a thread yet know nothing about what it is discussing, nor taking into account anything that has been said in relation to the very article in question that started the topic off, but opt to select one random post to address without being aware of the discussion on the thread. :conf: But hey, each to their own, live and let live as they say.

You're being pedantic, I knew the story but not the concrete facts and i repled to the post that intrigued me the most.

I'm actually stunned I have to explain this to be honest. It's kinda common sense.

[Pyramid*]

.... i said in the post you've quoted I've not commented on the story since I don't know enough about it. I've only talked about the law system and new identities. I'm not quite sure why you are trying to discredit me by trying to put words in my mouth when you've got my post quoted for everyone to see.



You're being pedantic, I knew the story but not the concrete facts and i repled to the post that intrigued me the most.

I'm actually stunned I have to explain this to be honest. It's kinda common sense.

I'm not being pedantic at all - your very own replies are lending themselves to much confusion. I'm unclear why you are 'actually stunned'.

In one post you say you didn't read the article in the daily mail that was provided (because it wasn't clear from the title of the thread), you then make comment about "typical hysterical Daily Mail image that, like the newspaper itself, is rarely based on fact" (despite not reading the article), then you say , "I didn't comment on the story as I didn't know enough about it", and now you say that "You knew the story but not the concrete facts".

No wonder I'm confused!:hugesmile: (note: that's a laugh in general at the confusion, not at you specifically)

In all fairness Dezzy - regardless of which newspapers stories are printed, tabloids or broadsheets - not all of them do offer up the concrete facts - especially in cases such as this - as very few of them are privy to the concrete facts.

Let's both agree to disagree on what you knew about the story or not - Regardless of where the information / article came from. The topic for discussion that was contained in the article was in respect of this particular man, Jason Owen being allowed the possiblity of being given a New ID, given the sickening crimes he committed.

Back to the thrust of the thread. your post below



Originally Posted by Dezzy http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/images/blue/viewpost.gif (http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4330214#post4330214)
where does this idea come from that he'd be given some sort of luxurious come from? He'd be given a dive to live in and a dead end job that he'd have to keep up due to the agreements he'd make upon getting a new identity. He'd be under severe restrictions and he'd always be watched. He's not gonna get some executive position and a penthouse to live in at the expense of the taxpayer.


and my reply....

Who said anything about some sort of 'luxurious'? Who inferred he was going to be given any executive position or penthouse. Not one person as far as I can see. If ever I saw an example of trying to throw a curve ball ...this really has to be it.

There are many homeless people who are far more deserving of being given a home. There are many people on the dole who are far more willing to work and simply cannot get a job - who deserve to be immediately placed in employement than scumbags like this man.

Why should low life like this be allowed such things when other more deserved in society, who may have committed no crime at all, far less an henious crime such as this man committed, be overlooked in favour of a child abuser and paedophile?

Do you honestly think a man such as Owen who has such background, such history (men like them at all - ie: Jon Venables) - should have more rights over those who may not have committed any crime, far less anything on the scale of Owen - that they should be afforded the same right to automatic housing, being given a job without question etc? You agree that someone like him, capable of inflicting such horrendous torture on an innocent child, should be given these priviledges all paid for out of the public purse?

[Pyramid*]

[QUOTE=patsylimerick;4330319]


Two things. First, I firmly believe, and I think we've discussed this before, that some people are just rotten and without empathy and out of control and will NEVER be rehabilitated to a sufficient level to safely allow them access to potential victims.

Second, even if it were possible to rehabilitate someone who does something like this, they don't deserve it. Back to Stu's suggestion, I think.

Hi Pats. Cannot agree more - especially given the latest new Jon Venables - if anyone needs proof that some people are out of control and will never be rehabilitated - even when that rehabilitation starts at a very young and very impressionable age: when they are not meant to be 'set in their way'....... JV is proof of that.

I know we have very differing views on keeping them in prison etc - but as far as protecting the public from such people, I'm 100% in agreeance with you on this one.

[Harry!]

He should NOT be entitled to a new identity, what he did to poor Peter was wrong and deserves to be in prison for much longer then that. Our system is so wrong on so many levels.

[MTVN]

how can the parole board, the powers that be, or the public be assured that he is a reformed character? If he is so 'reformed' and there is absolute proof of this: he should not require any new identity.

Do you honestly feel that 'reformed character or not' - that a person who has inflicted such horror and torture upon a young child, should benefit from the taxpayer paying for his new ID, house, job and all other manner of things that that would entail.

Do you truly feel that the strained public purse and it's very restricted finances should be used for such a new ID - rather than say, for example, being used towards treating sick children / or treating children who have suffered emotionally and physically at the hands of such people. ?

If there was a choice between the monies being spent on the New ID or what I have posed above: what would your preference be?

Do you think that if there were absolute proof of rehabilitation then that would stop some of the vigilante idiots from still pursuing their misguided concept of justice and trying to form a lynch mob? Working on the presumption that he has indeed been rehabilitated then I wouldnt be opposed to him having a new identity if there was sufficient evidence that his life was under threat.

And that's not really an answerable question because it presumes that the money can either be spent on one thing or the other. I'd rather taxpayers money wasnt being spent in the billions on unjust wars in Afghanistan, Iraq & now Libya, or that so much was spent on Trident etc. but it does, it's a straw man to say that because I wouldnt mind him having a new identity I, by extension, want to see sick children not be treated.

[Vicky.]

I saw something on tv earlier...about apparently the police are going to name and shame criminals to stop people thinking they are too soft.

Not sure what I saw it on though :/

[Pyramid*]

Do you think that if there were absolute proof of rehabilitation then that would stop some of the vigilante idiots from still pursuing their misguided concept of justice and trying to form a lynch mob? Working on the presumption that he has indeed been rehabilitated then I wouldnt be opposed to him having a new identity if there was sufficient evidence that his life was under threat.

And that's not really an answerable question because it presumes that the money can either be spent on one thing or the other. I'd rather taxpayers money wasnt being spent in the billions on unjust wars in Afghanistan, Iraq & now Libya, or that so much was spent on Trident etc. but it does, it's a straw man to say that because I wouldnt mind him having a new identity I, by extension, want to see sick children not be treated.

Given that the thread is nothing to do with wars etc, your 2nd paragraph is a completely moot point.

Re your first paragraph: if I am very honest: I really don't care. Owens didn't give a damn, why should I be concerned for his welfare. I'm not, and I don't pretend to be either.

[MTVN]

Given that the thread is nothing to do with wars etc, your 2nd paragraph is a completely moot point.

Re your first paragraph: if I am very honest: I really don't care. Owens didn't give a damn, why should I be concerned for his welfare. I'm not, and I don't pretend to be either.

What the hell, of course it's relevant, this thread isnt specifically about sick children either but you brought that up and that's fine because public expenditure is relevant to the thread and wars are obviously a part of that

[Pyramid*]

What the hell, of course it's relevant, this thread isnt specifically about sick children either but you brought that up and that's fine because public expenditure is relevant to the thread and wars are obviously a part of that

you will find you are taking my comment out of context......if you care to read the rest of what I wrote on that same paragraph - ie: Do you truly feel that the strained public purse and it's very restricted finances should be used for such a new ID - rather than say, for example, being used towards treating sick children / or treating children who have suffered emotionally and physically at the hands of such people. ?
The word 'sick' meant in regards to their mentail health due to such abuse and torture.

The thread is NOT about where public monies should be spent. Wars or not.

[MTVN]

you will find you are taking my comment out of context......if you care to read the rest of what I wrote on that same paragraph - ie: The word 'sick' meant in regards to their mentail health due to such abuse and torture.

The thread is NOT about where public monies should be spent. Wars or not.

I disagree, considering the thread is about how innapropiate you feel it is that this is what taxpayers money is being spent on then surely it's relevant to make other points in regards to how taxes are spent, is it not?

Anyway this is going off topic, I dont care much for an argument over the relevance of an argument so I'll leave it there

[Pyramid*]

I disagree, considering the thread is about how innapropiate you feel it is that this is what taxpayers money is being spent on then surely it's relevant to make other points in regards to how taxes are spent, is it not?

Anyway this is going off topic, I dont care much for an argument over the relevance of an argument so I'll leave it there

No it's not MTVN. It's painfully clear what this thread is about - not general allocation of funds from the public purse for any possible discussion topic - it's very specifically related to the public purse money being used to provide child abusers and killers with new identities - monies being used to protect violent, sick, abusing criminals and child killers.

[MTVN]

No it's not MTVN. It's painfully clear what this thread is about - not general allocation of funds from the public purse for any possible discussion topic - it's very specifically related to the public purse money being used to provide child abusers and killers with new identities - monies being used to protect violent, sick, abusing criminals and child killers.

If you want to say that taxpayers money can be better spent elsewhere than it is perfectly reasonable to discuss what else taxpayers money is spent on. But this is stupid and going nowhere. And for the first couple of pages this thread had nothing to do with having a new identity so dont pretend you're suddenly incredibly indignant that you feel the discussion has drifted off topic ever so slightly

[Grimnir]

i dont give 2 ****s anymore

the world is a nasty sesspit full of scumbags who defend other scum

so let them all out i say **** it

let them all out and give them TiBB accounts so they can contribute to this forum

[Pyramid*]

If you want to say that taxpayers money can be better spent elsewhere than it is perfectly reasonable to discuss what else taxpayers money is spent on. But this is stupid and going nowhere. And for the first couple of pages this thread had nothing to do with having a new identity so dont pretend you're suddenly incredibly indignant that you feel the discussion has drifted off topic ever so slightly

You might want to go check again...you were there commenting in the first few pages - and were pretty indignant when I said some of the views that some had - in relation to child abusers, child killers - sickened me - one of those views being yours because I disagreed that this man (and those like him), should be have his human rights considered now - after the crime he committed - and I strongly objected to that and him being given the possibilty of new id etc.

I love a good debate, but your recent input is not adding much to the heart of the matter. I really am going to respecfully request that you stop trying to skew the thread off rails, it's very clear what the subject is. Thanks very much.

[Pyramid*]

i dont give 2 ****s anymore

the world is a nasty sesspit full of scumbags who defend other scum

so let them all out i say **** it

let them all out and give them TiBB accounts so they can contribute to this forum

Actually - you have said something that has struck a chord. Let out the scum - and when they come knocking on the homes of those who defend them, and abuse the children of those who defend them - let's see if their sympathies still lie where they once did.

After all, new Ids haven't been overly successful in the past - look at Venables and Carr.

[MTVN]

Actually - you have said something that has struck a chord. Let out the scum - and when they come knocking on the homes of those who defend them, and abuse the children of those who defend them - let's see if their sympathies still lie where they once did.

After all, new Ids haven't been overly successful in the past - look at Venables and Carr.

As far as I know Maxine Carr has not reoffended (although I'm surprised she was given a new identity in the first place) and you can also look at Mary Bell who killed 2 people when she was 10, was given a new identity and has never reoffended and is now a grandmother. Even Robert Thompson has presumably not reoffended despite him being the one to show least remorse following the death and considering the manner in which their persecution went ahead.

It's all very well to point out cases of recidivism and say rehabilitation can't work but you have to consider cases where it has been successful as well.

[Niamh.]

As far as I know Maxine Carr has not reoffended (although I'm surprised she was given a new identity in the first place) and you can also look at Mary Bell who killed 2 people when she was 10, was given a new identity and has never reoffended and is now a grandmother. Even Robert Thompson has presumably not reoffended despite him being the one to show least remorse following the death and considering the manner in which their persecution went ahead.

It's all very well to point out cases of recidivism and say rehabilitation can't work but you have to consider cases where it has been successful as well.

I don't think the successful cases are worth the failed ones.

[MTVN]

I don't think the successful cases are worth the failed ones.

I see your point but I think the fact that rehabilitation can be sucessful means that times where it has failed is more due to problems with the system itself, as oppose to some people being inherently unreformable, I dont think anyone is past being rehabilitated (unless we're talking about people who are mentally ill, or psychopathic)

[Niamh.]

I see your point but I think the fact that rehabilitation can be sucessful means that times where it has failed is more due to problems with the system itself, as oppose to some people being inherently unreformable, I dont think anyone is past being rehabilitated (unless we're talking about people who are mentally ill, or psychopathic)

personally, I believe paedophiles and people who torture others, especially children are mentally ill.

[Ammi]

I see your point but I think the fact that rehabilitation can be sucessful means that times where it has failed is more due to problems with the system itself, as oppose to some people being inherently unreformable, I dont think anyone is past being rehabilitated (unless we're talking about people who are mentally ill, or psychopathic)

I understand what you are saying because I don't think we like to believe people are 'all bad' and therefore 'redeemable' or able to be rehabilitated given the right circumstances. I think its our nature to try and seek out the good in people. However, we have to judge people on their actions also and it is hard not to feel that some actions are unredeemable.

[Pyramid*]

As far as I know Maxine Carr has not reoffended (although I'm surprised she was given a new identity in the first place) and you can also look at Mary Bell who killed 2 people when she was 10, was given a new identity and has never reoffended and is now a grandmother. Even Robert Thompson has presumably not reoffended despite him being the one to show least remorse following the death and considering the manner in which their persecution went ahead.

It's all very well to point out cases of recidivism and say rehabilitation can't work but you have to consider cases where it has been successful as well.

Actually, I don't have to consider cases where it has been successful.

These people do not deserve a 2nd chance. Their victims didn't get a 2nd chance. They should 'do their time' and take their chances on the outside - whether that be successful or not - I care not one jot.

Polish it whatever way you like: my views on this are clear. I do not agree with you.