Originally Posted by angus58 (Post 3830300)

No, I am not as bad as the perpetrators of such wicked crimes, I have not exploited, abused and harmed and sometimes killed a child for my own perverted pleasure, so that argument goes out the window. Spare me the bleeding heart, "civilised" attitude which is precisely the reason why we have such grotesque inhumane monsters in our midst.

Let's face it If Venables had been dealt with properly the first time round, he would not have had the opportunity to abuse more innocent children, so the fault lies equally with the judicial system, and the bleeding heart liberals who bang on about the inhumane treatment of irredeemable scum like this. As far as I'm concerned, the moment such scum commits an act as evil as this, they have revoked any claim to be treated like a human being. Let's hope someone you love, never mind your own precious child, never becomes a victim to such acts of depravity and abuse, and if they do, god forbid, I wonder how forgiving, civilised and reasonable you would be if the perpetrator got a laughably lenient sentence.

Originally Posted by angus58 (Post 3830346)

:bored: pointless arguing, so I won't waste my time. Try getting your nose out of a book and face reality - no wonder this country is in the mess it is with people like you trying to take the moral high ground over emotive issues about which you have no understanding, experience or empathy. I can assure you I have NO need to justify myself to the right on brigade. Of course you're entitled to your opinion, that doesn't mean I have to accept its validity or relevance.
As to your last sentence, I beg to differ since you can have NO idea of what you would do if you were a parent of an abused child whose abuser got a laughably light sentence.

Originally Posted by MTVN (Post 3830347)

Oh ffs, would you stop with the "bleeding heart liberal" rhetoric, it's getting old now.

If you ask me, there should be a mix of reformation and retribution in prisons - they should serve time for their crime but they should try and be reformed at the same time, and shouldnt be released until they are considered to have done so. That's where we went wrong with Venables, it isnt that we didnt kill him.

The death penalty solves nothing, it is not an effective deterrent, and it just brings us down to their level.

Originally Posted by Shaun (Post 3830345)

I find the people who get so emotionally invested in these stories worrying. There's of course no denying that a disgusting wrong has happened - but why does this provoke so much vitriol and violence in some of you? I think these kinds of stories are thrust into the limelight with the intention of blinding everyone to rationality.

I'd agree that the justice system isn't perfect. The leniency on some sentences [for example, a man who stabbed my cousin who consequently died was given a manslaughter charge that saw him serve 4 years] is incredibly unfair - it does to an extent give criminals a kind-of buy-out clause. But even that, a personal bias, shouldn't sensationalise the debate.

I just don't understand how all of these people on a keyboard can spit out such threats and bile. It's counter-productive, if anything.

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 3830328)

Yeah you're not a bad as someone who's commited a violent act for wanting them murdered too...

We'll do things your way, how about we get rid of prisons and kill everyone instead? They might reoffend so we might as well off everyone with a criminal record and save us the time and bother. That would surely lead to a happy, safe and rosy world for all children wouldn't it?

We can't judge others if we commit violent acts ourselves, it's hypocrtical and it's wrong. The thing that SHOULD seperate civilians from criminals is our morality but where's the morality in torturing and murdering people and calling that justice? We need to be BETTER then the criminals we punish and murder and torture regardless the motivations is not rising above it.

Originally Posted by BB_Eye (Post 3830406)

This is all well and good if you see violence, in and of itself, as morally wrong and human beings, irrespective of their actions, as inherently valuable and deserving of rights. But really, in a democracy, it is civilians who have rights, not humans. When people lose their citizenship, they have effectively broken a social contract and lose many of the rights they would have enjoyed as civilians. Under a custodial sentence, it would be a right to vote, freedom of movement and a right not to be held against your will. This is totally fair given that criminals are convicted for violating other people's rights. While I am not in favour of capital punishment, I strongly disagree with and resent the notion that people who advocate the execution of the worst criminals are "just as bad".

Originally Posted by Jack_ (Post 3830286)

Christ @ the mindsets of some people in this thread. Two wrongs certainly don't make a right, and the more we encourage violence and torture, the more it is going to happen. It's common sense, really. Whilst I don't agree with the ridiculously short sentences these disgusting people receive, some of the suggestions for 'punishments' made in this thread are absolutely disgusting. I don't know about most people, but I would much rather see a criminal suffer for decades on end in prison than killing them quickly. And I know that doesn't happen, but that is what needs to happen.

As far as 'inhumane' things go, the furthest I would go is leaving the criminal in a cell with no clothes, no water, no food, absolutely until they eventually die.

But as I've already said, it would then teach kids that we accept and promote violence and torture - and we'd end up with even more criminals than we have now.

Originally Posted by Tom (Post 3830387)

The reason sentences are so lenient is because the prison system currently has 85,000 prisoners and counting whilst there are only enough space for around 60,000. They're vastly overcrowded. A prison infrastructure is also far too expensive to justify yet more tax payers money on to piss in the ocean at a time when cuts are being made across the board. It might seem unfair but there is a lot of practicality behind it.

Originally Posted by angus58 (Post 3830025)

Article from The Independent today:

"Girlfriend 'took lead role in sexual abuse of baby'


Wednesday, 6 October 2010


A paedophile said in court today he was told what to do by his then girlfriend as the pair sexually assaulted and took photographs of a five-month-old baby.


Colin Blanchard said it was Tracy Dawber, 44, who took the lead in the abuse.


Dawber, formerly of Bedford Road, Southport, Merseyside, denies the assault and permitting Blanchard to take the five indecent pictures.


Blanchard, 40, formerly from Rochdale, Lancs, is in custody awaiting sentence after admitting his involvement in the alleged assault by Dawber.


He told the jury at Winchester Crown Court today that Dawber had lifted the child's clothes to show it had no nappy on and he said Dawber told him to look at the child and to take the photographs.


"I was quite passive in the whole thing. I was taking the photographs as instructed," he said.


"I took a photograph and she asked me to show it to her and then I took another and I showed it again and she repositioned the child accordingly."


He said there had been sexual talk during the taking of the images but not much was said afterwards.


The pair had first had normal sex when they met in 2007 before moving on to what Blanchard described to the jury as an "A to Z of sexual desires and fantasies" and the pair discussed child sex.


During cross-examination by Deborah Gould, Blanchard admitted he was selfish and arrogant, that he lied to police and had tried to blame others.


He admitted he had been involved with many other woman including two named in court as Vanessa George and Tracy Lyons.


He had also sent images of child sex to two unnamed women, he admitted to the jury.


He said before his arrest he had been living a "double life".


Miss Gould asked: Did you know what the truth was at that time?"


Blanchard: "No".


Miss Gould: "But you know now?"


Blanchard: "Yes, as strange as it may seem."


Earlier the jury heard Dawber admitted it was her holding the baby in the photographs but denied the alleged wrongdoing.


In interview Dawber told police she could not remember the pictures being taken, but Simon Morgan, prosecuting, told the jury the Nokia phone always flashed when it took the pictures.


He said some had been taken from only about 9in away on August 20 2008.


"The Crown say the defendant was able to see the phone being used," he said.


Mr Morgan said the pair met in 2007 and had a sexual relationship and that she had "linked herself to his grossly unacceptable activities".


She described him as a sociable person but said she had been "disgusted when she heard on the news what he had been involved with".


Blanchard was caught in June 2009 when a work colleague discovered child pornography on his computer, the court heard.


He was arrested at Manchester airport and a connection via a Facebook account was made with Dawber.


Officers also uncovered the mobile phone from Blanchard's Volvo that contained the images of the baby, which were shown to the jury. It also showed Dawber in explicit poses.


When arrested in November 2009 Dawber would not confirm it was her holding the baby but she later admitted it.


Officers found child pornography on her computer that was the same as that discovered on Blanchard's and search words on her machine linked to child porn such as "Lolita". A PDF file containing stories about incest was also found. "




I just can't get my head around this story - but the thought of it just makes me sick to my stomach. The perpetrators can't possibly be part of the human race - I know what I would like to do to them, and it involves a chainsaw and a noose. Sadly under our useless justice system they will get just a few years in jail before being released to do it all over again.

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 3830272)

Well the Social Services would obviously get involved, you can't justify Inhumanity as justice Kazanne. The point of the law is that we are better then the criminals and that they are punished fairly and justly, not that we torture them and become as bad as them.

Originally Posted by Jack_ (Post 3830286)

Christ @ the mindsets of some people in this thread. Two wrongs certainly don't make a right, and the more we encourage violence and torture, the more it is going to happen. It's common sense, really. Whilst I don't agree with the ridiculously short sentences these disgusting people receive, some of the suggestions for 'punishments' made in this thread are absolutely disgusting. I don't know about most people, but I would much rather see a criminal suffer for decades on end in prison than killing them quickly. And I know that doesn't happen, but that is what needs to happen.

As far as 'inhumane' things go, the furthest I would go is leaving the criminal in a cell with no clothes, no water, no food, absolutely until they eventually die.

But as I've already said, it would then teach kids that we accept and promote violence and torture - and we'd end up with even more criminals than we have now.

Originally Posted by BB_Eye (Post 3830406)

This is all well and good if you see violence, in and of itself, as morally wrong and human beings, irrespective of their actions, as inherently valuable and deserving of rights. But really, in a democracy, it is civilians who have rights, not humans. When people lose their citizenship, they have effectively broken a social contract and lose many of the rights they would have enjoyed as civilians. Under a custodial sentence, it would be a right to vote, freedom of movement and a right not to be held against your will. This is totally fair given that criminals are convicted for violating other people's rights. While I am not in favour of capital punishment, I strongly disagree with and resent the notion that people who advocate the execution of the worst criminals are "just as bad".

Originally Posted by jedward fever (Post 3830710)

what about the parents that strapped the toddler to a wall? they should be dead and so should these.

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3830727)

PMSL,you've got some room to talk about peoples mindsets,lol you the one who thought jokes about kids being taped to a wall were funny,but of course you had the excuse that you thought the incident was terrible!! but the jokes made up about it were funny,Go figure.

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3830693)

Shows the 'soft' option isn't working then!

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3830686)

and as it happenes I would prefer to see a criminal be behind bars for decades,but they don't do they?they get a cushy ride,

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3830686)

Would you feel the same if it was YOUR child?

Originally Posted by Jack_ (Post 3830805)

And I didn't dispute that...infact I said I knew that wasn't the case. But there's not much I can do about that, is there? But it doesn't mean instead we need to resort to the death penalty and mass slaughter and torture, does it?



Yes, yes I would. Because I wouldn't want to teach my other children [if I had any] or any other children that I knew that torture and violence and murder is right. What good is there in that? Teach 'em early and then let them turn into a murderer or a bully when they get older? Yeah, because that's really what I want them becoming. Come on...use your brain for once. Two wrongs don't make a right. Most of these things are taught. A bully was oftened once bullied themselves, paedophiles were often sexually abused when they were children. So by teaching our kids that violence, murder and torture is an acceptable form of punishment what good are we really doing? Go ahead and do that if you like but at the end of the day we're going to end up living in a even less-safer world than we are in now.

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3830897)

Stop getting your pampers in a twist,it must piss you off so much that I don't agree with you about anything,

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3830897)

You have no kids,I have ,I also know the pain of people I know and love losing a child to violence,so don't tell me to use my brain,my brain is at least in gear

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3830897)

and Yes I know what a joke is ,I laugh at different ones to you,I have NEVER found a joke about abuse or murder funny,thank God,

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3830897)

and who advocated mass slaughter,torture and the death penalty!!!?

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3830721)

The Social services,Oh yes like the ones who saved baby Peter,Victoria Climbie,Kyra Isshak,Jessica Randal,Brandon Muir,I could reel a page off.I don't think we ARE better than the criminals if we sit back and do nothing,I am not saying lets have a mass slaughter,but at least let the punishment fit the crime,some people are evil,simple as.

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3830274)

But they are NOT punished fairly imo,that is why people get so angry at the British Justice System,it is a joke.

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 3830926)

Calm Down De Niro, you've already replied to that point before.



At the end of the day the justice system is what it is, if we had a system based around most suggestions I've heard here the world would be worse then it is now. Jack said it perfectly, two wrongs don't make a right no matter how you cut it.

If we end up lobotomizing people, torturing them, killing them, taking away bodily functions then the only thing that seperates us from the criminals is a gravely misplaced sense of justice. It's up to us to be BETTER then the people we judge, not to play them at their own game. You do that and you lose.

Originally Posted by Jack_ (Post 3830913)

Not really... :joker:



Well, really it's not if you want to teach your kids/other kids that violence and torture is a good form of punishment?



Exactly. So why can't you accept that I have a different sense of humour to you and that just because I have a different sense of humour to you I don't condone or participate in torture of animals/humans? It's quite pathetic, really.



That is the conclusion you would come to based on your posts in this thread...

Originally Posted by MTVN (Post 3830933)

I agree, that is the bottom line here imo.

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 3830926)

Calm Down De Niro, you've already replied to that point before.



At the end of the day the justice system is what it is, if we had a system based around most suggestions I've heard here the world would be worse then it is now. Jack said it perfectly, two wrongs don't make a right no matter how you cut it.

If we end up lobotomizing people, torturing them, killing them, taking away bodily functions then the only thing that seperates us from the criminals is a gravely misplaced sense of justice. It's up to us to be BETTER then the people we judge, not to play them at their own game. You do that and you lose.

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3830941)

What was the point of the De Niro remark,was that a joke also?

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 3830944)

That was because you were being slightly over agressive with everyone and considering the subject matter it was another Taxi Driver reference. So yes it was a joke, calm down.

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3830955)

I am splitting my sides here(NOT)I had the impression this was a serious debates thread and we should post our opinions about things that interest us,unless of course they are opinions you disagree with,I get it now!!!

Originally Posted by lily. (Post 3830962)

We need to lock up child sex offenders, and keep them locked up.

Experts say they can't be cured, so why allow them the freedom to re-offend.

Originally Posted by angus58 (Post 3830229)

You will also get idiots who argue that we should treat this scum in a civilised manner. Why? What would be the point in keeping vermin like this in the land of the living to inflict pain on innocent children if they get half a chance. If I were the parent of an abused child I'd be waiting outside the prison gates on their release to inflict my own brand of justice since the judicial system in this country is pathetically inadequate.

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3830897)

You have no kids,I have

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 3830966)

There's a difference between posting your opinion and cramming it down people's throats and positively screaming anyone down who doesn't agree Kazanne.

By all means dissect my last point if you can instead of trying to divert attention away from it...you know...debate something?

Originally Posted by Shaun (Post 3830975)

you say that like it's an achievement.

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3830721)

The Social services,Oh yes like the ones who saved baby Peter,Victoria Climbie,Kyra Isshak,Jessica Randal,Brandon Muir,I could reel a page off.I don't think we ARE better than the criminals if we sit back and do nothing,I am not saying lets have a mass slaughter,but at least let the punishment fit the crime,some people are evil,simple as.

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3830977)

I have my reasons for hating child abusers,I haven't screamed anyone down,I don't care who doesn't agree with me,i DO care that certain people find that if something is said in a 'joke' then it's ok to laugh at,but each to their own.

Originally Posted by lily. (Post 3830982)

If they were locked away for life.. and I do mean 'life' .. until the day they die, then we wouldn't have to worry about them hurting another child.

I don't agree with taking the law into our own hands. Where would be the point in that? Where does that lead society? The problem in this country is the lenient laws we have. If criminals got proper sentences appropriate to the crime, then the public wouldn't be ready to dole out their own unique brand of twisted justice.

If the law were changed and sentences were given which reflect the severity of the crime... and the public felt safe as a result, there wouldn't be so many people ready to take the vigilante route..

However, taking the vigilante route is not the answer to the problem. It will only create wider problems. Who would decide where to draw the line? When would it be okay to deal with things yourself?





That all being said, if it were my baby, I'd kill the ******.
(I just sh!t all over my previous points with that last sentence.. )

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 3830985)

I'm not saying don't hate them but there's a line between hating them and saying they should be tortured and murdered like you have throughout the whole topic.