gaaboard.com

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/04/prisoner-attempted-murder-ian-huntley

Damien Fowkes, 35, pleaded guilty at Hull crown court to slashing Huntley's throat in Frankland prison, Durham, in March last year.  Fowkes, from Northampton, also admitted the manslaughter of the child killer Colin Hatch, who was strangled at Full Sutton prison near York in February this year. The court heard how Fowkes shows "strong psychopathic traits".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15163465
Mr Reeds said Fowkes barricaded himself and Hatch into a cell and told prison officers he would not kill him if they stayed outside.

The officers dealt with it as a hostage situation.But, with the officers outside, Fowkes killed Hatch using strips of bedding as ligatures.At one point, Fowkes told officers: "He's a nonce. He doesn't deserve to live."
He later claimed Hatch had contacted him by telepathy, asking him to kill him.


And then there are the tabloids

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxine_Carr_(criminal)

Maxine Carr was released from prison on 14 May 2004 and immediately received police protection. She won an injunction on 24 February 2005, granting her lifelong anonymity on the grounds that her life would otherwise be in danger from lynch mobs. The costs of this have been reported by different tabloid newspapers as being between £1 million and £50 million, costs that would possibly have been unnecessary were it not for what former Daily Mirror editor Roy Greenslade described as tabloid newspapers "whipping up the kind of public hysteria guaranteed to incite misguided people to take the law into their own hands".[31]
Some tabloids have taken to writing inaccurate articles designed to smear her, possibly because of her unusual legal position. She has been variously accused of receiving thousands of pounds worth of dental treatment at the taxpayers' expense, applying for a childcare course, negotiating a £1 million book deal with a publisher and making a series of sensational demands in order to live abroad. All these stories were untrue, but Maxine Carr was unable to make any formal response to them without jeopardising her anonymity.[32]

At least a dozen women have been attacked and persecuted as a result of lynch mobs "enraged by fake stories about Carr published by red-top papers", as Greenslade said.[32][33][34][35][36] Channel 4 released a documentary describing this as a modern witchhunt against unknown women of similar appearance to Carr who have recently moved into an area.[37

To be fair, if I was in prison for murder already or serving any length of a sentence I would have no hesitation of having a go at child killers, rapists, etc.  They deserve to live in fear in prison rather than have a cushy time strolling around prison.  They're fair game if you ask me.

Quote from: screenmachine on October 04, 2011, 07:39:21 PM
To be fair, if I was in prison for murder already or serving any length of a sentence I would have no hesitation of having a go at child killers, rapists, etc.  They deserve to live in fear in prison rather than have a cushy time strolling around prison.  They're fair game if you ask me.

Why not just kill yourself if you were a murderer as well?

Quote from: screenmachine on October 04, 2011, 07:39:21 PM
To be fair, if I was in prison for murder already or serving any length of a sentence I would have no hesitation of having a go at child killers, rapists, etc.  They deserve to live in fear in prison rather than have a cushy time strolling around prison.  They're fair game if you ask me.

Mental note, avoid debate with screenexile as he has shown psychopath symptoms...

Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 04, 2011, 07:41:58 PM

Quote from: screenmachine on October 04, 2011, 07:39:21 PM
To be fair, if I was in prison for murder already or serving any length of a sentence I would have no hesitation of having a go at child killers, rapists, etc.  They deserve to live in fear in prison rather than have a cushy time strolling around prison.  They're fair game if you ask me.

Mental note, avoid debate with screenexile as he has shown psychopath symptoms...

But you're cool with screenmachine?  ;)

Quote from: muppet on October 04, 2011, 07:45:34 PM

Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 04, 2011, 07:41:58 PM

Quote from: screenmachine on October 04, 2011, 07:39:21 PM
To be fair, if I was in prison for murder already or serving any length of a sentence I would have no hesitation of having a go at child killers, rapists, etc.  They deserve to live in fear in prison rather than have a cushy time strolling around prison.  They're fair game if you ask me.

Mental note, avoid debate with screenexile as he has shown psychopath symptoms...

But you're cool with screenmachine?  ;)

All the same from that part of the woods..

Quote from: gallsman on October 04, 2011, 07:40:53 PM

Quote from: screenmachine on October 04, 2011, 07:39:21 PM
To be fair, if I was in prison for murder already or serving any length of a sentence I would have no hesitation of having a go at child killers, rapists, etc.  They deserve to live in fear in prison rather than have a cushy time strolling around prison.  They're fair game if you ask me.

Why not just kill yourself if you were a murderer as well?

I would look upon child murderers differently from someone who murders someone as an act of revenge, for example.  Don't get me wrong, all murder is wrong but if someone killed/raped/whatever a close member of your family and you took the law into your own hands, it's still wrong but I am sure you would have greater sympathy from the public compared to someone like Huntley for example who murdered two young kids out of the blue...

Sure the American Government have been doing it for years in certain states... ;)

So its all about whether or not you would get the wider sympathy of the public rather than actually having any convictions of your own about waht is right and wrong?? Wtf are you talking about??

I clearly stated that it would still be wrong to carry out a revenge murder. I simply added to this point that it would be easier to justify your reasons to someone if this was an act of revenge rather than a random killing of a child. Not that it would matter, it would still be wrong but a different type of wrong. Some would even say it's right. Or is it left?

Quote from: haranguerer on October 05, 2011, 01:21:41 PM
So its all about whether or not you would get the wider sympathy of the public rather than actually having any convictions of your own about waht is right and wrong?? Wtf are you talking about??

Whats not to understand??  I think his point is quite clear.  Say you are a doing a live term for armed robbery (which this guy is), and say your a wee bit nutty (which this guy clearly is) and your moral compass isn't exactly pointing north.  Then its not inconceivable that you might say "f**k it, I'm doing a life stretch and think those two child raping bastards deserve to die"
And whats more, no one will give a flying fcuk about it!

^^^ Yeah, what he said ballbag.  ;)

Quote from: hardstation on October 05, 2011, 01:55:41 PM
Still some fcuked up thinking, IMO.

Is that you David Norris?  :D

Do people like Huntley forfeit the right to life if they kill a child ?

I wonder what the proportion of psychopaths in the typical prison population is. There seem to be a sizeable number in the corporate world as well.

QuoteThere seem to be a sizeable number in the corporate world as well.

That's for sure. 

Quote from: seafoid on October 05, 2011, 02:30:04 PM
Do people like Huntley forfeit the right to life if they kill a child ?

I wonder what the proportion of psychopaths in the typical prison population is. There seem to be a sizeable number in the corporate world as well.

I honestly think they should.  I dont support the death penalty as such, but have no sympathy for anyone who murders, rapes or abuses children.  I would not spare a thought for them no matter what way they meet their end.  I would even include people that look at "child pornography" in this category.  The very name takes away from the offence that it actually is. It is not pornography.  Every image of this nature is a crime scene, every image, is the rape or abuse of an innocent child, and those that view them for the purposes of sexual gratification are participating fully in that crime and they should be punished accordingly.  Which should be life in prison as they will always pose a danger to the most important part of our society, our children.
The law does not protect innocent people.  As suspended sentences are handed out for viewing child abuse, and sentences of only a couple of years are handed out for some instances of child abuse including rape.
Tell me what would you do if a convicted paedophile who was sentenced for viewing images of children moved in to a house close where you were raising a family?  I think you would be mad to do nothing.  I can tell you that I could live with the shame of murdering that individual a lot easier than the shame if I did nothing and he went on to abuse one of my children knowing you could have prevented it.

Quote from: HiMucker on October 05, 2011, 02:48:12 PM

Quote from: seafoid on October 05, 2011, 02:30:04 PM
Do people like Huntley forfeit the right to life if they kill a child ?

I wonder what the proportion of psychopaths in the typical prison population is. There seem to be a sizeable number in the corporate world as well.

I honestly think they should.  I dont support the death penalty as such, but have no sympathy for anyone who murders, rapes or abuses children.  I would not spare a thought for them no matter what way they meet their end.  I would even include people that look at "child pornography" in this category.  The very name takes away from the offence that it actually is. It is not pornography.  Every image of this nature is a crime scene, every image, is the rape or abuse of an innocent child, and those that view them for the purposes of sexual gratification are participating fully in that crime and they should be punished accordingly.  Which should be life in prison as they will always pose a danger to the most important part of our society, our children.
The law does not protect innocent people.  As suspended sentences are handed out for viewing child abuse, and sentences of only a couple of years are handed out for some instances of child abuse including rape.
Tell me what would you do if a convicted paedophile who was sentenced for viewing images of children moved in to a house close where you were raising a family?  I think you would be mad to do nothing.  I can tell you that I could live with the shame of murdering that individual a lot easier than the shame if I did nothing and he went on to abuse one of my children knowing you could have prevented it.

Where would you draw the line?  People who make money out of child porn ?
Should war mongers be executed too ? And people who run brothels in rural Ireland with trafficked women who are kept as slaves ?

Kill them.  Kill them all.

Quote from: screenmachine on October 05, 2011, 01:53:43 PM
^^^ Yeah, what he said ballbag.  ;)

Brilliant - still someone else doing the thinking for you and you call me ballbag  :D

Even more ironic because what he said doesnt make any sense whatsoever. He seems to be trying to support your point of view that if you had nothing to lose in terms of a prison term you would be esentially justified in killing someone like Huntley, but according to him, only if you were ' a wee bit nutty and your moral compass isnt pointing north'.

So presumably then, you are claiming these attributes for yourself?

You seem to be the only one that can't make sense of it to be honest?  If you want to play word games dodge on to the Countdown thread and make a nuisance of yourself there.

Quote from: seafoid on October 05, 2011, 03:01:45 PM

Quote from: HiMucker on October 05, 2011, 02:48:12 PM

Quote from: seafoid on October 05, 2011, 02:30:04 PM
Do people like Huntley forfeit the right to life if they kill a child ?

I wonder what the proportion of psychopaths in the typical prison population is. There seem to be a sizeable number in the corporate world as well.

I honestly think they should.  I dont support the death penalty as such, but have no sympathy for anyone who murders, rapes or abuses children.  I would not spare a thought for them no matter what way they meet their end.  I would even include people that look at "child pornography" in this category.  The very name takes away from the offence that it actually is. It is not pornography.  Every image of this nature is a crime scene, every image, is the rape or abuse of an innocent child, and those that view them for the purposes of sexual gratification are participating fully in that crime and they should be punished accordingly.  Which should be life in prison as they will always pose a danger to the most important part of our society, our children.
The law does not protect innocent people.  As suspended sentences are handed out for viewing child abuse, and sentences of only a couple of years are handed out for some instances of child abuse including rape.
Tell me what would you do if a convicted paedophile who was sentenced for viewing images of children moved in to a house close where you were raising a family?  I think you would be mad to do nothing.  I can tell you that I could live with the shame of murdering that individual a lot easier than the shame if I did nothing and he went on to abuse one of my children knowing you could have prevented it.

Where would you draw the line?  People who make money out of child porn ?
Should war mongers be executed too ? And people who run brothels in rural Ireland with trafficked women who are kept as slaves ?

I have drawn my line, Il leave the sex traffickers and war mongers for another debate!
People who make money out of child abuse should be dealt with just as harshly.  But they are not the same as the abusers.  As in if they could make money easily by other means they would or if circumstances were different.  Were an abuser, no matter what job he/she takes, where they live or how much their lifestyle changes they will not change. 

Quote from: haranguerer on October 05, 2011, 03:22:34 PM

Quote from: screenmachine on October 05, 2011, 01:53:43 PM
^^^ Yeah, what he said ballbag.  ;)

Brilliant - still someone else doing the thinking for you and you call me ballbag  :D

Even more ironic because what he said doesnt make any sense whatsoever. He seems to be trying to support your point of view that if you had nothing to lose in terms of a prison term you would be esentially justified in killing someone like Huntley, but according to him, only if you were ' a wee bit nutty and your moral compass isnt pointing north'.

So presumably then, you are claiming these attributes for yourself?

"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools...."
I never mentioned justification.  If you cant understand why someone might do something like that, then I cant help you.

Screen, I can make perfect sense of what I think of the issue. Thats because its my own point of view and I've thought about why I hold it, its not some populist view that I've jumped on knowing it has the support of the wider public and makes me sound hard.

To clarify what I cant make sense of, in your original post you stated that the only thing holding you back from killing someone like Huntley is a prison sentence, a few posts later you altered your point of view to say you'd just meant you could understand why a psychopathic criminal might try to kill him. So are you claiming to be a psychopathic criminal, or did you radically change your view in such a short space of time? If the latter, then you really cant have much courage in your convictions, so theres little reason for listening to anything you say on the topic.

And Himucker, are you really saying your post and the others you have posted since dont attempt to essentially justify killing child killers/abusers? It seems you 'can't bear to hear the truth you've spoken after all', and although its not my intention to make a trap it seems everything is interpreted as such by those very same fools....

Understanding why someone might do that is very different to condoning it. I can understand it, but still think it wrong, and bad for society. Do you understand why someone might for e.g. kill a child?

Do you both really think society would be improved if child killers abusers etc were executed, or if a blind eye was turned to their 'accidental' deaths in prison?

Seeing as you love the quotes mucker 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind'.

Its a serious question, tempting as it is I'm sure it will be to accuse me of twisting your words, or beng a paedo, etc etc, i'd have a lot more respect for yous if you tried reason instead.

Right you seem to be speaking more clearly on this know.  My original post was about your man that try to kill Huntley and I could see why he might do that.  So that's keep that separate. 

Since then I gave my own personal opinion what I think should be done to child sex offenders.  Indeed it would not be good for society (which I will limit to our own wee part of the world, as I do realise that the issues of child abuse, and child trafficking are alot more complexed in other parts of the world, like Cambodia or Thailand), but I feel that the laws of the land do not protect society from these issues.  The facts will show, that the vast majority of these offenders, re offend when released from prison.  That coupled with sentencing being far too light, and the fact that many abusers were once victims of abuse themselves, then you have an escalating problem.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but it is very easy to look at these circumstances from a distance and hold the moral high ground, and say it is for the good of society.  However if you look at the most simple and most important building block of society, which is the family unit, then it is easy to understand how one might share my views.  As a parent it is your basic duty to protect your children and if the laws of the land don't cater for it what are you suppose to do?  I can tell you from experience, that when you consult the law on a paedo living in your area there is nothing they can do.  The police (and its not their fault) will tell you he has served his time, the law states that he has a right to carry on with his life.  In this instance the cop actually said, there is nothing we can do, but there is people that can sort this out for you.  So you have a cop condoning vigilantism because he understands were your coming from.
Tell me now, honestly, what you would do?  Do you say this isn't could for society and take a risk, and if something happens to one of your kids you live with the guilt of knowing you could have prevented it. 
I understand your point of view, and can accept it.  Two wrongs don't make a right, but I know that there is choices I could live with and choices I couldn't.  Can you understand this point of view?

Hi Mucker

Do you think people like Huntley should be allowed to commit suicide in prison?  Apparently he tried it already.


And what do you think of the British tabloids and their fixation on Myra Hindley, Maxine Carr and Huntley  ?

Quote from: seafoid on October 05, 2011, 06:01:15 PM
Hi Mucker

Do you think people like Huntley should be allowed to commit suicide in prison?  Apparently he tried it already.


And what do you think of the British tabloids and their fixation on Myra Hindley, Maxine Carr and Huntley  ?

no, I think life imprisonment would be worse punishment

Don't have much time for the sensationalism of tabloids.  I read that 12 women who recently moved into areas were targeted because people thought it was maxine Carr.

When I made my original post I didn't intend this discussion to turn into a psychology lesson.  Basically all I was saying is this;

If, for example, a child rapist/murderer/whatever carried out said act on a member of your family I would have no problem doing this individual serious damage/killing him if the opportunity arose.  Now, this does not make it right - you play the game so you live by the rules.  If this meant going to the clink for X number of years, then so be it.  You know the risk when you get involved in this type of behaviour.

Similarly, if I was already in jail serving a lengthy sentence for another crime, let's say armed robbery as is the case with the Huntley attempted murder, and the opportunity arose to cause serious damage/kill a child rapist/murderer then I would probably think, "I'm in here already and not going anywhere fast..." You know the rest.  (May I point out at this stage that I did use the word 'if'.  This does not mean I am a psychopathic criminal nor am I claiming to be one, merely what would be a possibility if put in this situation.)

You have to take each situation on it's own merit and this is simply what I think I would do if I was indeed involved in one of the above situations.

If a child murderer/rapist/etc carried out an act like this on a member of your family and you had the opportunity to hand out some justice of your own, I find it hard to believe that anyone would just let the situation pass.

On the point of the public perception of each case, I was also merely stating that I believe that the public could find a way to easier understand why someone would kill someone in an act of revenge against a child killer/rapist rather than instead trying to understand the killing of a child.  It doesn't make it right but people can sympathise a lot easier with the revenge killing.  Twitter was rife today with people stating that when they saw Ian Huntley trending they thought he had died/been killed and were disappointed to find out it was due to this recent assault case.  If he was killed tomorrow my first thought would be, 'This sicko got what he deserved.'  I certainly wouldn't think, 'That's awful, the poor man should have been let serve his sentence and return to his community to see out the remainder of his life.'  Are you suggesting you would go down the road of the second line of thought or what angle are you approaching this from?

Quote from: screenmachine on October 05, 2011, 06:46:51 PM
When I made my original post I didn't intend this discussion to turn into a psychology lesson.  Basically all I was saying is this;

If, for example, a child rapist/murderer/whatever carried out said act on a member of your family I would have no problem doing this individual serious damage/killing him if the opportunity arose.  Now, this does not make it right - you play the game so you live by the rules.  If this meant going to the clink for X number of years, then so be it.  You know the risk when you get involved in this type of behaviour.

Similarly, if I was already in jail serving a lengthy sentence for another crime, let's say armed robbery as is the case with the Huntley attempted murder, and the opportunity arose to cause serious damage/kill a child rapist/murderer then I would probably think, "I'm in here already and not going anywhere fast..." You know the rest.  (May I point out at this stage that I did use the word 'if'.  This does not mean I am a psychopathic criminal nor am I claiming to be one, merely what would be a possibility if put in this situation.)

You have to take each situation on it's own merit and this is simply what I think I would do if I was indeed involved in one of the above situations.

If a child murderer/rapist/etc carried out an act like this on a member of your family and you had the opportunity to hand out some justice of your own, I find it hard to believe that anyone would just let the situation pass.

On the point of the public perception of each case, I was also merely stating that I believe that the public could find a way to easier understand why someone would kill someone in an act of revenge against a child killer/rapist rather than instead trying to understand the killing of a child.  It doesn't make it right but people can sympathise a lot easier with the revenge killing.  Twitter was rife today with people stating that when they saw Ian Huntley trending they thought he had died/been killed and were disappointed to find out it was due to this recent assault case.  If he was killed tomorrow my first thought would be, 'This sicko got what he deserved.'  I certainly wouldn't think, 'That's awful, the poor man should have been let serve his sentence and return to his community to see out the remainder of his life.'  Are you suggesting you would go down the road of the second line of thought or what angle are you approaching this from?

+1. Unrepentant child molesters/killers deserve everything they get. I know a fella did time and he said the fellas in the canteen put ground up glass in the "nonces" dinner. Proper order.

Quote from: screenmachine on October 05, 2011, 01:47:26 PM
I clearly stated that it would still be wrong to carry out a revenge murder. I simply added to this point that it would be easier to justify your reasons to someone if this was an act of revenge rather than a random killing of a child. Not that it would matter, it would still be wrong but a different type of wrong. Some would even say it's right. Or is it left?

Your initial point mentioned nothing of revenge, you just said if you were in for life, one of the possible reasons for which could be committing murder. I see no difference between a murderer or rapist whether is victim is a child, adult or OAP.

Quote from: gallsman on October 05, 2011, 07:56:54 PM

Quote from: screenmachine on October 05, 2011, 01:47:26 PM
I clearly stated that it would still be wrong to carry out a revenge murder. I simply added to this point that it would be easier to justify your reasons to someone if this was an act of revenge rather than a random killing of a child. Not that it would matter, it would still be wrong but a different type of wrong. Some would even say it's right. Or is it left?

Your initial point mentioned nothing of revenge, you just said if you were in for life, one of the possible reasons for which could be committing murder. I see no difference between a murderer or rapist whether is victim is a child, adult or OAP.

The criminal fraternity see a huge difference, which is why sex offenders are kept in separate wings/units.

I really don't get why everyone is picking up on what screen has said. I don't find any of it outlandish.

Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 05, 2011, 08:02:17 PM

Quote from: gallsman on October 05, 2011, 07:56:54 PM

Quote from: screenmachine on October 05, 2011, 01:47:26 PM
I clearly stated that it would still be wrong to carry out a revenge murder. I simply added to this point that it would be easier to justify your reasons to someone if this was an act of revenge rather than a random killing of a child. Not that it would matter, it would still be wrong but a different type of wrong. Some would even say it's right. Or is it left?

Your initial point mentioned nothing of revenge, you just said if you were in for life, one of the possible reasons for which could be committing murder. I see no difference between a murderer or rapist whether is victim is a child, adult or OAP.

The criminal fraternity see a huge difference, which is why sex offenders are kept in separate wings/units.

I really don't get why everyone is picking up on what screen has said. I don't find any of it outlandish.

He appears to specifically focusing on murderers/rapists whose victims are children. Assuming he's not a member of the "criminal fraternity" I'm curious as to why he's happily shared that he would do in a few child murderers/rapists but has said nothing regarding murderers/rapists whose victims are adults.

I thought it was pretty obvious but the fact I was concentrating on child rapists and killers was because this thread is about a child rapist/killer, i.e. Ian Huntley.  Apologies for not writing a thesis on criminal acts and suggested punishments handed out by Screenmachine. Sometimes I think people come on to threads to complain, to say black when someone else says white. This seems to be the case all to often.  :(

Quote from: screenmachine on October 05, 2011, 08:38:19 PM
I thought it was pretty obvious but the fact I was concentrating on child rapists and killers was because this thread is about a child rapist/killer, i.e. Ian Huntley.  Apologies for not writing a thesis on criminal acts and suggested punishments handed out by Screenmachine. Sometimes I think people come on to threads to complain, to say black when someone else says white. This seems to be the case all to often.  :(

Maybe you should speak with little bit more clarity in the first place.

In case you've forgotten (or changed your minded, or were just posting shite), what you said was:

QuoteTo be fair, if I was in prison for murder already or serving any length of a sentence...

I'm curious as to why you appear to see a difference in the murder you hypothetically committed and that of Ian Huntley - you appear to see some strange moral justification in the murder or a child killer whist ignoring the fact that you yourself would be a murderer. Is one less vile a crime than the other depending on the age of the victim?

Now, this is an anonymous discussion board, so of course you're not obliged to justify or explain anything you say. Conversely, precisely because it's a discussion board, some people who disagree with your views might question you in order to understand the rationale behind it. If you so wish, you could answer them.

Alternatively, you could again deflect and dismiss the issue altogether and make a petty (and largely unsuccessful) effort at trying to be funny.

I'll try and make this as simple as possible.

All murder is wrong.   However, in my own opinion, killing a child is pretty much the bottom of the barrel. 

My hypothetical murder has nothing to do with it, I was merely using this 'murder or serving any length of sentence' as a possible situation as to why I would be in prison in the first place to stage this attack on a child killer.  For argument's sake let's make this 'any length of a sentence' be down to a spate of violent bank robberies rather than murder.

To answer your other question, is killing a child more vile than killing an adult?

In my opinion, yes.

Quote from: gallsman on October 05, 2011, 08:47:37 PM

Quote from: screenmachine on October 05, 2011, 08:38:19 PM
I thought it was pretty obvious but the fact I was concentrating on child rapists and killers was because this thread is about a child rapist/killer, i.e. Ian Huntley.  Apologies for not writing a thesis on criminal acts and suggested punishments handed out by Screenmachine. Sometimes I think people come on to threads to complain, to say black when someone else says white. This seems to be the case all to often.  :(

Maybe you should speak with little bit more clarity in the first place.

In case you've forgotten (or changed your minded, or were just posting shite), what you said was:

QuoteTo be fair, if I was in prison for murder already or serving any length of a sentence...

I'm curious as to why you appear to see a difference in the murder you hypothetically committed and that of Ian Huntley - you appear to see some strange moral justification in the murder or a child killer whist ignoring the fact that you yourself would be a murderer. Is one less vile a crime than the other depending on the age of the victim?

Now, this is an anonymous discussion board, so of course you're not obliged to justify or explain anything you say. Conversely, precisely because it's a discussion board, some people who disagree with your views might question you in order to understand the rationale behind it. If you so wish, you could answer them.

Alternatively, you could again deflect and dismiss the issue altogether and make a petty (and largely unsuccessful) effort at trying to be funny.

Yes.

Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 05, 2011, 10:25:08 PM

Quote from: gallsman on October 05, 2011, 08:47:37 PM

Quote from: screenmachine on October 05, 2011, 08:38:19 PM
I thought it was pretty obvious but the fact I was concentrating on child rapists and killers was because this thread is about a child rapist/killer, i.e. Ian Huntley.  Apologies for not writing a thesis on criminal acts and suggested punishments handed out by Screenmachine. Sometimes I think people come on to threads to complain, to say black when someone else says white. This seems to be the case all to often.  :(

Maybe you should speak with little bit more clarity in the first place.

In case you've forgotten (or changed your minded, or were just posting shite), what you said was:

QuoteTo be fair, if I was in prison for murder already or serving any length of a sentence...

I'm curious as to why you appear to see a difference in the murder you hypothetically committed and that of Ian Huntley - you appear to see some strange moral justification in the murder or a child killer whist ignoring the fact that you yourself would be a murderer. Is one less vile a crime than the other depending on the age of the victim?

Now, this is an anonymous discussion board, so of course you're not obliged to justify or explain anything you say. Conversely, precisely because it's a discussion board, some people who disagree with your views might question you in order to understand the rationale behind it. If you so wish, you could answer them.

Alternatively, you could again deflect and dismiss the issue altogether and make a petty (and largely unsuccessful) effort at trying to be funny.

Yes.

See, to me that's the warped bit - drawing distinctions about how one should value human life.

Quote from: gallsman on October 05, 2011, 11:09:09 PM

Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 05, 2011, 10:25:08 PM

Quote from: gallsman on October 05, 2011, 08:47:37 PM

Quote from: screenmachine on October 05, 2011, 08:38:19 PM
I thought it was pretty obvious but the fact I was concentrating on child rapists and killers was because this thread is about a child rapist/killer, i.e. Ian Huntley.  Apologies for not writing a thesis on criminal acts and suggested punishments handed out by Screenmachine. Sometimes I think people come on to threads to complain, to say black when someone else says white. This seems to be the case all to often.  :(

Maybe you should speak with little bit more clarity in the first place.

In case you've forgotten (or changed your minded, or were just posting shite), what you said was:

QuoteTo be fair, if I was in prison for murder already or serving any length of a sentence...

I'm curious as to why you appear to see a difference in the murder you hypothetically committed and that of Ian Huntley - you appear to see some strange moral justification in the murder or a child killer whist ignoring the fact that you yourself would be a murderer. Is one less vile a crime than the other depending on the age of the victim?

Now, this is an anonymous discussion board, so of course you're not obliged to justify or explain anything you say. Conversely, precisely because it's a discussion board, some people who disagree with your views might question you in order to understand the rationale behind it. If you so wish, you could answer them.

Alternatively, you could again deflect and dismiss the issue altogether and make a petty (and largely unsuccessful) effort at trying to be funny.

Yes.

See, to me that's the warped bit - drawing distinctions about how one should value human life.

I think it's warped that you can't see the difference between the murder of an innocent child and and the murder of a hardened criminal who may have murdered someone. As Tony Parsons regularly tweets "Armed robber stabbed to death by homeowner. His condition is described as "satisfactory"."

Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 05, 2011, 11:19:08 PM

Quote from: gallsman on October 05, 2011, 11:09:09 PM

Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 05, 2011, 10:25:08 PM

Quote from: gallsman on October 05, 2011, 08:47:37 PM

Quote from: screenmachine on October 05, 2011, 08:38:19 PM
I thought it was pretty obvious but the fact I was concentrating on child rapists and killers was because this thread is about a child rapist/killer, i.e. Ian Huntley.  Apologies for not writing a thesis on criminal acts and suggested punishments handed out by Screenmachine. Sometimes I think people come on to threads to complain, to say black when someone else says white. This seems to be the case all to often.  :(

Maybe you should speak with little bit more clarity in the first place.

In case you've forgotten (or changed your minded, or were just posting shite), what you said was:

QuoteTo be fair, if I was in prison for murder already or serving any length of a sentence...

I'm curious as to why you appear to see a difference in the murder you hypothetically committed and that of Ian Huntley - you appear to see some strange moral justification in the murder or a child killer whist ignoring the fact that you yourself would be a murderer. Is one less vile a crime than the other depending on the age of the victim?

Now, this is an anonymous discussion board, so of course you're not obliged to justify or explain anything you say. Conversely, precisely because it's a discussion board, some people who disagree with your views might question you in order to understand the rationale behind it. If you so wish, you could answer them.

Alternatively, you could again deflect and dismiss the issue altogether and make a petty (and largely unsuccessful) effort at trying to be funny.

Yes.

See, to me that's the warped bit - drawing distinctions about how one should value human life.

I think it's warped that you can't see the difference between the murder of an innocent child and and the murder of a hardened criminal who may have murdered someone. As Tony Parsons regularly tweets "Armed robber stabbed to death by homeowner. His condition is described as "satisfactory"."

You're not reading my posts correctly and I'm very capable of see that difference thank you very much.

You have two murderers - one murders an innocent child, one murders an innocent adult. Is one of these acts any more or less reprehensible than the other?

Quote from: gallsman on October 05, 2011, 11:09:09 PM

Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 05, 2011, 10:25:08 PM

Quote from: gallsman on October 05, 2011, 08:47:37 PM
[quote author=screenmachine link=topic=20393.msg1028174#msg1028174 date=131784349
I thought it was pretty obvious but the fact I was concentrating on child rapists and killers was because this thread is about a child rapist/killer, i.e. Ian Huntley.  MApologies for not writing a thesis on criminal acts and suggested punishments handed out by Screenmachine. Sometimes I think people come on to threads to complain, to say black when someone else says white. This seems to be the case all to often.  :(

Maybe you should speak with little bit more clarity in the first place.

In case you've forgotten (or changed your minded, or were just posting shite), what you said was:

QuoteTo be fair, if I was in prison for murder already or serving any length of a sentence...

I'm curious as to why you appear to see a difference in the murder you hypothetically committed and that of Ian Huntley - you appear to see some strange moral justification in the murder or a child killer whist ignoring the fact that you yourself would be a murderer. Is one less vile a crime than the other depending on the age of the victim?

Now, this is an anonymous discussion board, so of course you're not obliged to justify or explain anything you say. Conversely, precisely because it's a discussion board, some people who disagree with your views might question you in order to understand the rationale behind it. If you so wish, you could answer them.

Alternatively, you could again deflect and dismiss the issue altogether and make a petty (and largely unsuccessful) effort at trying to be funny.

Yes.o

See, to me that's the warped bit - drawing distinctions about how one should value human life.
[/quote]no harm lad you are talking nonsense.  You are trying to say that all murd er is the same is just bonkers.  And to be fair it does seem to look like your arguing for the sake of it, no matter how well constructed your sentences are

Quote from: gallsman on October 05, 2011, 11:23:24 PM

Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 05, 2011, 11:19:08 PM

Quote from: gallsman on October 05, 2011, 11:09:09 PM

Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 05, 2011, 10:25:08 PM

Quote from: gallsman on October 05, 2011, 08:47:37 PM

Quote from: screenmachine on October 05, 2011, 08:38:19 PM
I thought it was pretty obvious but the fact I was concentrating on child rapists and killers was because this thread is about a child rapist/killer, i.e. Ian Huntley.  Apologies for not writing a thesis on criminal acts and suggested punishments handed out by Screenmachine. Sometimes I think people come on to threads to complain, to say black when someone else says white. This seems to be the case all to often.  :(

Maybe you should speak with little bit more clarity in the first place.

In case you've forgotten (or changed your minded, or were just posting shite), what you said was:

QuoteTo be fair, if I was in prison for murder already or serving any length of a sentence...

I'm curious as to why you appear to see a difference in the murder you hypothetically committed and that of Ian Huntley - you appear to see some strange moral justification in the murder or a child killer whist ignoring the fact that you yourself would be a murderer. Is one less vile a crime than the other depending on the age of the victim?

Now, this is an anonymous discussion board, so of course you're not obliged to justify or explain anything you say. Conversely, precisely because it's a discussion board, some people who disagree with your views might question you in order to understand the rationale behind it. If you so wish, you could answer them.

Alternatively, you could again deflect and dismiss the issue altogether and make a petty (and largely unsuccessful) effort at trying to be funny.

Yes.

See, to me that's the warped bit - drawing distinctions about how one should value human life.

I think it's warped that you can't see the difference between the murder of an innocent child and and the murder of a hardened criminal who may have murdered someone. As Tony Parsons regularly tweets "Armed robber stabbed to death by homeowner. His condition is described as "satisfactory"."

You're not reading my posts correctly and I'm very capable of see that difference thank you very much.

You have two murderers - one murders an innocent child, one murders an innocent adult. Is one of these acts any more or less reprehensible than the other?

Yes (again).

Quote from: HiMucker on October 05, 2011, 11:34:11 PM
no harm lad you are talking nonsense.  1) You are trying to say that all murd er is the same is just bonkers.  And to be fair it 2) does seem to look like your arguing for the sake of it, no matter how well constructed your sentences are

1) No I'm not - I'm questioning whether the age of a victim makes a murder (or any other violent crime) a "worse" or a more horrific crime. Screenmachine put forward the hypothetical scenario of him being in prison for a crime like murder. Now presumably this murder was that of an innocent person. However, based on what I consider to warped logic, he appears to feel that this would lead him to some twisted moral high ground where he would do in another murderer, one who had murdered an innocent child as he'd be serving a long sentence anyway. Why should someone not do him in for having committed murder simply because his victim was an adult?

2) You do understand the concept of how a discussion board works, yes? Perhaps my sentences are well constructed as I'm trying to articulate an opinion - you could maybe consider said opinion and come back to me on it, challenge it by all means, rather than putting words in my mouth and dismissing it offhand.

Quote from: gallsman on October 05, 2011, 11:45:34 PM

Quote from: HiMucker on October 05, 2011, 11:34:11 PM

Quote from: gallsman on October 05, 2011, 11:09:09 PM

Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 05, 2011, 10:25:08 PM

Quote from: gallsman on October 05, 2011, 08:47:37 PM
[quote author=screenmachine link=topic=20393.msg1028174#msg1028174 date=131784349
I thought it was pretty obvious but the fact I was concentrating on child rapists and killers was because this thread is about a child rapist/killer, i.e. Ian Huntley.  MApologies for not writing a thesis on criminal acts and suggested punishments handed out by Screenmachine. Sometimes I think people come on to threads to complain, to say black when someone else says white. This seems to be the case all to often.  :(

Maybe you should speak with little bit more clarity in the first place.

In case you've forgotten (or changed your minded, or were just posting shite), what you said was:

QuoteTo be fair, if I was in prison for murder already or serving any length of a sentence...

I'm curious as to why you appear to see a difference in the murder you hypothetically committed and that of Ian Huntley - you appear to see some strange moral justification in the murder or a child killer whist ignoring the fact that you yourself would be a murderer. Is one less vile a crime than the other depending on the age of the victim?

Now, this is an anonymous discussion board, so of course you're not obliged to justify or explain anything you say. Conversely, precisely because it's a discussion board, some people who disagree with your views might question you in order to understand the rationale behind it. If you so wish, you could answer them.

Alternatively, you could again deflect and dismiss the issue altogether and make a petty (and largely unsuccessful) effort at trying to be funny.

Yes.o

See, to me that's the warped bit - drawing distinctions about how one should value human life.

no harm lad you are talking nonsense.  1) You are trying to say that all murd er is the same is just bonkers.  And to be fair it 2) does seem to look like your arguing for the sake of it, no matter how well constructed your sentences are

1) No I'm not - I'm questioning whether the age of a victim makes a murder (or any other violent crime) a "worse" or a more horrific crime. Screenmachine put forward the hypothetical scenario of him being in prison for a crime like murder. Now presumably this murder was that of an innocent person. However, based on what I consider to warped logic, he appears to feel that this would lead him to some twisted moral high ground where he would do in another murderer, one who had murdered an innocent child as he'd be serving a long sentence anyway. Why should someone not do him in for having committed murder simply because his victim was an adult?

2) You do understand the concept of how a discussion board works, yes? Perhaps my sentences are well constructed as I'm trying to articulate an opinion - you could maybe consider said opinion and come back to me on it, challenge it by all means, rather than putting words in my mouth and dismissing it offhand.
[/quote]You have stated your opinion and others have disagreed with it. Accept the fact that no matter how many times you re-package your argument it is still the same argument.

Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 05, 2011, 11:44:50 PM
Yes (again).

You must forgive me asking for clarification - the first time I put the question to you accused me of not being able to see the difference between the murder of an innocent child and the murder of a hardened criminal...

I've stated my point - I don't think age should be a determining factor in how one values human life. You disagree, fair enough.

Quote from: gallsman on October 05, 2011, 11:51:22 PM

Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 05, 2011, 11:44:50 PM
Yes (again).

You must forgive me asking for clarification - the first time I put the question to you accused me of not being able to see the difference between the murder of an innocent child and the murder of a hardened criminal...

I've stated my point - I don't think age should be a determining factor in how one values human life. You disagree, fair enough.

Good man. I'm not one for circuitous arguments like some of these other clowns. Different strokes for different folks.

In my opinion the child murder is still worse, maybe I'm wrong for looking at it like that but it is just my opinion.  In my earlier posts I was generally referring to comparisons between a child killer and a person who killed someone in an act of revenge. Fair enough there's not massive difference in the murder of an innocent child or an adult but I still believe the child murder is worse. The extra press coverage that a child murder would receive would lead me to believe that this would generally be the status quo. If you see things differently, then that's your opinion and fair enough. By the way, if I end up getting done in for a hypothetical murder someone on here is going to pay...Hypothetically speaking of course. ;)

Quote from: screenmachine on October 05, 2011, 11:57:16 PM
In my opinion the child murder is still worse, maybe I'm wrong for looking at it like that but it is just my opinion.  In my earlier posts I was generally referring to comparisons between a child killer and a person who killed someone in an act of revenge. Fair enough there's not massive difference in the murder of an innocent child or an adult but I still believe the child murder is worse. The extra press coverage that a child murder would receive would lead me to believe that this would generally be the status quo. If you see things differently, then that's your opinion and fair enough. By the way, if I end up getting done in for a hypothetical murder someone on here is going to pay...Hypothetically speaking of course. ;)

Um........you teach children Karate.

Children get hurt because of that.

At least they're more thought out answers, fair play. Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. I'm not arguing for the sake of it however - its an issue which really really annoys me - not the treatment of child killers/rapists (btw, Huntley killed two girls, its accepted he didnt sexually abuse them nor was that the motive), but mob mentality whipped up by the media, which essentially gives people who couldnt be bothered thinking for themselves a crusade to go on. Thats what the initial post by seafoid ws about, and thats the angle he keeps trying to bring the thread back towards.

I'm not suggesting either of you couldnt be bothered thinking for yourselves, i just wanted to point out where I think your point of views are damaging. I notice that above everyone will always use extreme examples. The fact of the matter is, its almost entirely one big grey area. Child killers should be killed? What about John Venables? He was a child himself. The father who jumped off the balcony with his child in an attempt at suicide? He survived, the child didnt. Should he be killed?

For me its a sign of the times as I said before that people either can't, or dont want to think for themselves, so they follow the crowd, safe to cry 'witch' at everyone when they're in the middle of a mob. This frenzy is fed by the meida, who are constantly lookig for the next victim (like the landlord in the Joanna yeats case). People in general want to find common ground with those around them, so they seek the views noone is likely to disagree with - kill paedos, etc etc - it makes them seem like they have strongly held convictions when in actual fact they are just being sheep.

Every case is different.  I think there is quite a difference when a child kills a child rather than an adult killing a child.  In the case of Venables, was he not recently reconvicted of possession of child pornography or something along those lines.  Clearly a sick individual who's childhood traits have carried on into his adult life and yet the system still tries to protect him by masking his identity and letting him move freely in a community (up until his recent re-arrest anyway.)  If someone was to dispose of Venables, in prison or elsewhere, I wouldn't lose too much sleep.  The world would be a better place without him in my opinion.

Suicide is definitely a grey area which very few people fully understand and why this man jumped of a balcony with his child is a question I can't answer.  I would still look upon it very differently from someone who abducts and murders a child.

Quote from: gallsman on October 05, 2011, 11:45:34 PM

Quote from: HiMucker on October 05, 2011, 11:34:11 PM
no harm lad you are talking nonsense.  1) You are trying to say that all murd er is the same is just bonkers.  And to be fair it 2) does seem to look like your arguing for the sake of it, no matter how well constructed your sentences are

1) No I'm not - I'm questioning whether the age of a victim makes a murder (or any other violent crime) a "worse" or a more horrific crime. Screenmachine put forward the hypothetical scenario of him being in prison for a crime like murder. Now presumably this murder was that of an innocent person. However, based on what I consider to warped logic, he appears to feel that this would lead him to some twisted moral high ground where he would do in another murderer, one who had murdered an innocent child as he'd be serving a long sentence anyway. Why should someone not do him in for having committed murder simply because his victim was an adult?

2) You do understand the concept of how a discussion board works, yes? Perhaps my sentences are well constructed as I'm trying to articulate an opinion - you could maybe consider said opinion and come back to me on it, challenge it by all means, rather than putting words in my mouth and dismissing it offhand.

Right chap I wasnt putting words in your mouth.  I was actually paying you a complement that your posts were very well articulated even though they were flawed.  However I thought you were expressing an opinion though from your last post you seem to suggest that you are playing devils advocate and merely asking the question is one murder worse than the other.  So I will take Tonys stance and keep it short and sweet. Yes I do think that the murder for a child  is worse than the same said murder of an adult.
Maybe the next time you can to me the honour of separating your opinion from the question, as I am tad slow  ;)

Haranguerer, you have alot of different arguments going on in your last post.  I fully understand the point you are making about the media hype, and how it influences peoples opinions and decisons.  I fully agree with it.  There is many many different scenarios you can look at, but from my earlier post, I was trying to shorten the perspective, and to look at it from the point of view of one man protecting his family.  You never told me what you would do?

I dont no every detail of the huntley case, you said that it was accepted that it was not sexually motivated.  I thought that he was running a bath for them.  Is this true or balls?  Not disagreeing with you here, just interested.  Maybe I heard that through the tripe that some of the tabloids put out?

What I would do is irrelevant, as is what you would do. When it comes down to the situation where your family is in immediate danger, I would say any reasonable force is acceptable. To give an example, if someone who had broke into a house was killed by the homeowner and there is no evidence that they used clearly unaccepatable means - e.g had completely subdued them but then shot them in the head, I dont think that person should be convicted, becuase if you are defending yourself and your family, you cant take chances that that person will get up and kill all around them - add panic and fear into the equation and there are a lot of mitigating circumstances.

However, if someone has been caught, convicted etc, we can't allow summary justice. Its not even anything to do with a sense of morality, although imo it would be immoral - its that it would be opening a whole can of worms which would consume civilised society.

Re Huntley - no, it was murder, and it may even have been accidental as such i.e he hadnt intended to kill them

Are you in a sense sympathising with Huntley as in he may not even have meant to do it or am i getting the total wrong end of the stick here  ???

Huntley had a record of s*x with underage girls according to Wiki.

Quote from: tyrone girl on October 06, 2011, 12:24:23 PM
Are you in a sense sympathising with Huntley as in he may not even have meant to do it or am i getting the total wrong end of the stick here  ???

Guess. You've got the end of the stick you usually get, which will happen when you dont consider what it was in response to.

Huntley isnt the issue in my post at all, but since thats the part that was focussed on - as 'child abuser/killer' had been used interchangeably it seems in relation to him which seemed to make him fairer game for retribution, I pointed out that there were no mention of him abusing the girls he killed, nor was there any evidence of there having been an intention to do so -it seems it wasnt premeditated and may have been accidental. Noone knows but him I suppose.

Why do you ask? Is it just because if I had answered 'yes' you'd have had a chance to shout 'witch' as i suspect??

Shout Witch? You suspect wrongly!
I asked out of interest plain and simple as i have been glancing over responses in this thread and that bit stood out at the end. Was interested in the point of view.
What do you mean though when you say it wasnt premeditated? I presume you mean the murder itself or do you mean the capture of the girls at the outset? If there wasnt any sexual nature intended or to hurt or kill them wasnt intended and was accidental why did he entice them into the house in the first place?
What do you think he intended to do with them?

How should I know? I dont know much about the Huntley case at all - I just pointed out that he was never found to have abused the girls.

If you were glancing over the posts you will see that Huntleys individual case has little to do with any of my posts, I was just commenting on the labelling of him as a child abuser as an aside because it had some relevance to the wider argument of summary justice.

Fair enough.
Im of the opinion though that anyone who hurts/ abuses/ murders a child is fair game for whatever retribution will come their way. I would have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever nor could i care less what would happen someone.
The issue i would have is that if i was inside for whatever reason i dont see how id feel the need to take it upon myself to kill the person. If it was a member of my family certainly and id make no apologies for it but i dont see how some randomer in jail can have the support of people for killing a sc**bag.
Granted if he had killed huntley id be glad he got what was coming to him but at the same time does it not just make this fella a murdering sc**bag as well.
After reading this post it actually doesnt make much sense but its best way i can explain it (in me own head anyway)

Quote from: tyrone girl on October 06, 2011, 02:00:02 PM
Fair enough.
Im of the opinion though that anyone who hurts/ abuses/ murders a child is fair game for whatever retribution will come their way. I would have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever nor could i care less what would happen someone.
The issue i would have is that if i was inside for whatever reason i dont see how id feel the need to take it upon myself to kill the person. If it was a member of my family certainly and id make no apologies for it but i dont see how some randomer in jail can have the support of people for killing a sc**bag.
Granted if he had killed huntley id be glad he got what was coming to him but at the same time does it not just make this fella a murdering sc**bag as well.
After reading this post it actually doesnt make much sense but its best way i can explain it (in me own head anyway)

That is why capital punishment is never going to be put to a vote in Europe and why they'll never stop executing criminals in Texas.

The other question is whether or not people can be reformed in prison. Or do their crimes define them forever? 

I dont believe that anyone who sexually abuses or murders a child can ever be reformed in prison. Petty criminals maybe but murderers / rapists no.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/dec/17/prison-justice-baby-p-shannon-matthews?INTCMP=SRCH

Alongside sex offenders, those in prison for harming children are the most reviled on a prison landing, by many members of staff as well as prisoners it should be said. As the two attacks so far on Donovan illustrate, such offenders quickly discover that there are no hiding places in prison. Even when they are held on special, so called "protection units" - or VPUs (vulnerable prisoners' unit) under prison rule 45 (removal from general association for own protection,) they are rarely safe. Everyone in prison has to move around the prison at some point, for trips to the healthcare centre, for visits, (if they have anyone outside who is prepared to visit) or simply to be transferred to another unit or out of the prison. When it comes to the meting out of so called "prison justice", windows of opportunity abound.


But who are these self-appointed judges and executioners who take it upon themselves to dish out extra judicial violence on fellow prisoners of whom they disapprove? Either they are just nasty sanctimonious bullies, so ashamed of their own failings that they prey on anyone they see as more vulnerable than themselves. Or they are inadequate dullards, vulnerable and easily goaded into senseless assaults on strangers by their sharper neighbours, "the chaps" who get their kicks by playing the morally bankrupt "prison code" game. And cowardice always looms large when attacks are being considered. As the wise heads on the landings say, "If a man five feet nothing is convicted of something to do with sex or children he's a nonce - if he's over six feet, there might be some doubt about his conviction."


The scale of the hypocrisy of such prison barbarism must be mindboggling to right thinking people who have never experienced the reality of the vagaries of prison life. But the more sinister brand of hypocrisy, I believe, is that practised by the counterparts of the prison attackers on the outside lording in their own self-righteousness and probably getting some sort of vicarious kick too from condoning and encouraging this animalistic behaviour.


Reminiscent of David Blunkett's comment when he was home secretary that it was time to "crack open a bottle" when he heard the news that mass murderer Harold Shipman had hanged himself, last week an un-named minister was reported as commenting that Shannon Matthews's mother Karen would "get hers in jail". Coupled with her branding as "pure evil" by the police and tabloid newspapers, Matthews's status as a legitimate target upon whom any pathetic malcontent on the landings may vent their own self-loathing was assured.


It will be the same for the abusers of Baby P. In spite of their court-ordered anonymity, everyone in prison will know who they are and where they are. And when the attacks are reported there will be plenty on the outside who will rejoice. "I hope they get beaten on a daily basis," one woman who contacted a radio phone-in show told the presenter last week. "I hope that continues until they are beaten so badly that they die," she said. That might yet happen. But if it does, it will not be a victory for justice. On the contrary, it will be just another stain on the tragic memory of their victim.

Quote from: tyrone girl on October 06, 2011, 02:00:02 PM
Fair enough.
Im of the opinion though that anyone who hurts/ abuses/ murders a child is fair game for whatever retribution will come their way. I would have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever nor could i care less what would happen someone.
The issue i would have is that if i was inside for whatever reason i dont see how id feel the need to take it upon myself to kill the person. If it was a member of my family certainly and id make no apologies for it but i dont see how some randomer in jail can have the support of people for killing a sc**bag.
Granted if he had killed huntley id be glad he got what was coming to him but at the same time does it not just make this fella a murdering sc**bag as well.
After reading this post it actually doesnt make much sense but its best way i can explain it (in me own head anyway)

It doesnt make much sense and you can't explain it because its essentially a stream of populist views you've strung together in an attempt to appear as though you are articulating your own opinion.

Seafoid, I suspect you had that article in mind when you started the thread!

To paraphrase Mario Puzo: "They're all animals anyway - so let them lose their souls".

Quote from: haranguerer on October 06, 2011, 05:00:53 PM

Quote from: tyrone girl on October 06, 2011, 02:00:02 PM
Fair enough.
Im of the opinion though that anyone who hurts/ abuses/ murders a child is fair game for whatever retribution will come their way. I would have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever nor could i care less what would happen someone.
The issue i would have is that if i was inside for whatever reason i dont see how id feel the need to take it upon myself to kill the person. If it was a member of my family certainly and id make no apologies for it but i dont see how some randomer in jail can have the support of people for killing a sc**bag.
Granted if he had killed huntley id be glad he got what was coming to him but at the same time does it not just make this fella a murdering sc**bag as well.
After reading this post it actually doesnt make much sense but its best way i can explain it (in me own head anyway)

It doesnt make much sense and you can't explain it because its essentially a stream of populist views you've strung together in an attempt to appear as though you are articulating your own opinion.

Seafoid, I suspect you had that article in mind when you started the thread!

No. I just found it. I was looking for the article where Erwin James explains how we was slowly rehabilitated . The bit where he talks about all the self hatred and worthlessness he felt as a murderer is very interesting.   

Quote from: haranguerer on October 06, 2011, 05:00:53 PM

Quote from: tyrone girl on October 06, 2011, 02:00:02 PM
Fair enough.
Im of the opinion though that anyone who hurts/ abuses/ murders a child is fair game for whatever retribution will come their way. I would have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever nor could i care less what would happen someone.
The issue i would have is that if i was inside for whatever reason i dont see how id feel the need to take it upon myself to kill the person. If it was a member of my family certainly and id make no apologies for it but i dont see how some randomer in jail can have the support of people for killing a sc**bag.
Granted if he had killed huntley id be glad he got what was coming to him but at the same time does it not just make this fella a murdering sc**bag as well.
After reading this post it actually doesnt make much sense but its best way i can explain it (in me own head anyway)

It doesnt make much sense and you can't explain it because its essentially a stream of populist views you've strung together in an attempt to appear as though you are articulating your own opinion.

Seafoid, I suspect you had that article in mind when you started the thread!

Right let me explain it  in as short a way as i can as it seems to annoy u that u cant make sense of it

I think they deserve whats coming to them. I dont care what happens them. Though feel that if someone not involved or with no direct reason to be involved kills them then they are a sc**bag also. Still would feel huntley got what he deserved.
Thats as clear as i can get it. As for a stream of populist views i have apparently put together, dont talk dung. I dont need to articulate my own opinion. It is what it is and doesnt need to be justified.

This thread just seems to be running in circles every few hours.  I don't think anyone is trying to say vigilante justice is right but in the real world it does happen and will continue to do so.  Like TG said I would think Huntley got what he deserved if he was done in.  On a similar note, I would not be upgrading his killer to hero status.  He would still be a sc**bag and if he was already in prison for a serious offence then I would imagine he has been a sc**bag for quite some time already and would not be too bothered with the results of his actions or the opinions of a few more people thinking he was a sc**bag.

I would imagine this guy carried out the attempted murder as he dislikes child killers/rapists, seen an oppurtunity and went for him.  I'm sure he didn't go in with the idea to impress people on the outside world or gain a few more disgruntled followers who now think he is a bigger sc**bag than before.  He probably done it for the sake of doing it to be honest.  Sometimes it's as simple as that and doesn't need an in-depth look into the psychology of the perpetrator.

Quote from: tyrone girl on October 06, 2011, 10:37:11 PM

Right let me explain it  in as short a way as i can as it seems to annoy u that u cant make sense of it

I think they deserve whats coming to them. I dont care what happens them. Though feel that if someone not involved or with no direct reason to be involved kills them then they are a sc**bag also. Still would feel huntley got what he deserved.
Thats as clear as i can get it. As for a stream of populist views i have apparently put together, dont talk dung. I dont need to articulate my own opinion. It is what it is and doesnt need to be justified.

I can make perfect sense of it - I did. It was you that said yourself you couldn't make sense of it  ???

And it is a string of populist views, and if you want it understood, you do have to articulate, and yes really, everyone should be able to justify their opinions.

Going on what you've said, yours is: They get what they deserve, but this isn't me justifiyng it because anyone who actually does what I think should be done, is also a sc**bag  :D Now thats having courage in your convictions!!

Screen  - people did say vigilante justice is right. TG above is one simple example - 'fair game for whatever retribution comes their way'. Just because she seems to also say its wrong in the same sentence doesnt change that, it just makes the overall effect:  ::)

If TG thinks a child killer is 'fair game for whatever retribution comes their way' surely this is her basing her own opinion on the situation rather than trying to justify vigilante justice. 

To be honest this whole discussion could be put down to differences of opinion, I don't think anyone is trying to (or is going to) convince anyone else that vigilante justice is right/wrong.

How many times do i have to tell u. I couldnt care less what happens Huntley, if someone kills him i couldnt care less. Id like to think he suffered. If someone wanted to do it, again i couldnt care less. Anyone who commits a murder is obviously a sc**bag. Should this be someone directly related to it however i could see their reasoning in doing it.
If some randomer murders anyone regardless of what i think of the person they have murdered i would still think they are scum.
By the way i dont need to justify my opinion to you, or to anyone. Why should i? Its my opinion and i dont feel like i need to justify to you why that is the case.
I dont care why you have the opinion you do.

What if there was no such thing as a hypothetical situation?

Quote from: tyrone girl on October 07, 2011, 09:59:59 AM
How many times do i have to tell u. I couldnt care less what happens Huntley, if someone kills him i couldnt care less. Id like to think he suffered. If someone wanted to do it, again i couldnt care less. Anyone who commits a murder is obviously a sc**bag. Should this be someone directly related to it however i could see their reasoning in doing it.
If some randomer murders anyone regardless of what i think of the person they have murdered i would still think they are scum.
By the way i dont need to justify my opinion to you, or to anyone. Why should i? Its my opinion and i dont feel like i need to justify to you why that is the case.
I dont care why you have the opinion you do.

Im of the same opinion fcuk him, in my view he gave up any human rights he ever had when he drowned 2 young girls in a bath the sick cnut. I hope he dies a very slow and horrible death.

Quote from: tyrone girl on October 07, 2011, 09:59:59 AM
By the way i dont need to justify my opinion to you, or to anyone. Why should i? Its my opinion and i dont feel like i need to justify to you why that is the case.
I dont care why you have the opinion you do.

No, I guess you dont.

You're probably best not posting them on a discussion board though if not. If you dont feel the need to justify your opinions, and you say you dont care about why I have my opinion, it begs the question, wtf are you doing posting on this thread?

Screen - she essentially said she supports the action but not the person who carries it out. My issue with TG isnt with her support for summary justice or otherwise; thats an opinion (altho if you dont want them questioned...welll  see above) its that its a ridiculously stupid post

Quote from: haranguerer on October 07, 2011, 08:49:06 AM

Quote from: tyrone girl on October 06, 2011, 10:37:11 PM

Right let me explain it  in as short a way as i can as it seems to annoy u that u cant make sense of it

I think they deserve whats coming to them. I dont care what happens them. Though feel that if someone not involved or with no direct reason to be involved kills them then they are a sc**bag also. Still would feel huntley got what he deserved.
Thats as clear as i can get it. As for a stream of populist views i have apparently put together, dont talk dung. I dont need to articulate my own opinion. It is what it is and doesnt need to be justified. 

I can make perfect sense of it - I did. It was you that said yourself you couldn't make sense of it  ???

And it is a string of populist views, and if you want it understood, you do have to articulate, and yes really, everyone should be able to justify their opinions.

Going on what you've said, yours is: They get what they deserve, but this isn't me justifiyng it because anyone who actually does what I think should be done, is also a sc**bag  :D Now thats having courage in your convictions!!

Screen  - people did say vigilante justice is right. TG above is one simple example - 'fair game for whatever retribution comes their way'. Just because she seems to also say its wrong in the same sentence doesnt change that, it just makes the overall effect:  ::)

You really need to get off your high horse.  Your dismissing TGs legitimate point of view which is quite clear.  She and others accept your opinion which I feel is valid.  We live in a world were people have different beliefs on certain issues, it does not mean one is wrong and one is right.  But you must understand why people would have such viewpoints.  For the record I don't agree with the article above.  Prison services shouldn't fail on the jobs they are paid to do, but I think it sanctimonious bullshit to say we should all be up in arms that some vile inmate has been attacked by another.  It is just plain human emotion to say "ah f**k them, they didn't even get close to what they deserved".  As for the politicians, they are only human as well.
  You said earlier when I asked you a question "it doesn't matter what you or I would do", so you could escape from revealing what your  own emotions would be in that same situation.  What you and I might do has everyhting to do with it, as this is what helps form our opinions and these actions in reality effect our family antherefore society.
Inmates attacking other inmates in prison might well be scumbags, but I think its foolish to think that people that would want to do this on the outside are scumbags also.  You will have people that will think its immoral, and are totally against violence, whether it be their religious beliefs or mindset.  But you then have other people, who will be amongst your friends and family, that morality does not come into it, that the only thing stopping them is the knowledge that their actions have consequences for them, ie a long prison sentence.  I also feel this argument is very circular, but this Utopian society were you can dismiss peoples opinions and emotions on vigilante attacks on sex offenders, child killers, and the most heinous of murderers doesn't not exist.  If offenders were given the sentences they should do, and people were climbing over the walls to get at them, then you could label them barbaric.

Quote from: Hardy on October 07, 2011, 10:05:56 AM
What if there was no such thing as a hypothetical situation?

(http://www.printitproducts.com/ekmps/shops/printit/images/p2100616%5Bekm%5D278x300%5Bekm%5D.jpg)

I'm not on a high horse. The reason I have been questioning TGs stance is because it is completely contradictory. If she'd said, they deserve to die, and I dont care if they're killed in prision, I hope they suffer, then thats fair enough, thats an actual opinion. If she'd said, anyone who would carry out such retribution is a murdering sc**bag (altho she said she would if it was a member of her family), then that too is fair enough. To say both in the same sentence however is ridiculous -this is what I'm pointing out, not the error (imo) of either opinion. Its the moral equivalent of NIMBY ffs, which doesnt really work in moral terms....

The point about the emotion involved is this; There are very few black/white areas, and a lot of grey. What anyone does is influenced by mental state, emotion, circumstance, etc etc. And certainly, if it was a member of my family or someone close to me, I dont know how that could affect me, its certainly a likelihood I would want to kill the perpetrator or want them to be killed. Its irrleevant because what we would all do in a given situation isn't what society is formed on, nor can it be. We may all thinnk of ourselves as stong minded moral individuals who will do the best for each other, but in reality we will very often merely do what is best for ourselves when in that situation.

If someone is a murderer does it mean they can never be rehabilitated ? Surely Martin McGuinness for example has done some good since the early 70s.  Or Gusty Spence RIP.

And what is the point of the justice system if summary executions are the way forward ?
Isn't the  whole point of the courts to take the emotion out of sentencing ?

Quote from: haranguerer on October 07, 2011, 01:39:32 PM
I'm not on a high horse. The reason I have been questioning TGs stance is because it is completely contradictory. If she'd said, they deserve to die, and I dont care if they're killed in prision, I hope they suffer, then thats fair enough, thats an actual opinion. If she'd said, anyone who would carry out such retribution is a murdering sc**bag (altho she said she would if it was a member of her family), then that too is fair enough. To say both in the same sentence however is ridiculous -this is what I'm pointing out, not the error (imo) of either opinion. Its the moral equivalent of NIMBY ffs, which doesnt really work in moral terms....

The point  about the emotion involved is this; There are very few black/white areas, and a lot of grey. What anyone does is influenced by mental state, emotion, circumstance, etc etc. And certainly, if it was a member of my family or someone close to me, I dont know how that could affect me, its certainly a likelihood I would want to kill the perpetrator or want them to be killed. Its irrleevant because what we would all do in a given situation isn't what society is formed on, nor can it be. We may all thinnk of ourselves as stong minded moral individuals who will do the best for each other, but in reality we will very often merely do what is best for ourselves when in that situation.

Fully agree with this bit in bold, but I would like to think that there would be still a lot of fair minded people out there even without the rule of law.  Always think post apocalyptic films show what "decent" people can become without the rule of law.

In fairness I think there is a number of different arguments going on within this debate, and we might be guilty of rolling it into one.

Firstly you have:  Is it right that some of the most vile criminals are dealt extra judicial justice in prison?
No, I don't think its Right, but I don't have any sympathy for them, and don't really care.  However I can see if this was left to be the norm it would have an adverse effect on society

Secondly:  Is it right for extra judicial punishment on same said vile offenders when they are released from prison?
Again my answer would be as above

Thirdly:  Are Prison sentences too lenient on sex offenders?
I don't think that anybody would disagree with me when I say yes they bloody are!

Lastly, probably the most important point I was trying to make and has a fair bit to do with the sentencing argument:  Is it right for a man to protect his family from said same offender when they are released from prison even if this means them breaking the law?
In my opinion the answer is yes.  In my opinion the law has failed in its responsibility to protect the most vulnerable in society.  This should not be confused with the first or second arguments as they are dealing with punishment and in some peoples minds even justice.  This last point of the argument is solely dealing with protection.  And in my view, even with keeping your own emotions under wraps,  of what punishment and justice should be for these offenders, protecting your family is a separate issue.

Who knows I'm only a young man under 30 and maybe in another 30 years I will have a slightly different view.  And since we both likewee sayings  ;),  a famous man once said "he who views the world the same at 60 as he did at 30 has just wasted 30 years of his life"

Gold star for whoever guesses who said it  :)

https://www.thejournal.ie/ian-huntley-seriously-injured-after-prison-attack-6968543-Feb2026/

Has been attacked again. Condition touch and go apparently. Hard to believe it's been nearly quarter of a century.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/02/26/ian-huntley-soham-killer-hmp-frankland-attacked-in-cell/
Huntley, 52, was airlifted to hospital after he was ambushed at HMP Frankland, County Durham, at around 9am on Thursday.

The killer, who suffered head injuries in the assault, was allegedly attacked with a spiked metal pole after in the prison workshop.

It marks the third time Huntley has been attacked by fellow inmates in jail.

Quote from: seafoid on February 26, 2026, 06:38:08 PMhttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/02/26/ian-huntley-soham-killer-hmp-frankland-attacked-in-cell/
Huntley, 52, was airlifted to hospital after he was ambushed at HMP Frankland, County Durham, at around 9am on Thursday.

The killer, who suffered head injuries in the assault, was allegedly attacked with a spiked metal pole after in the prison workshop.

It marks the third time Huntley has been attacked by fellow inmates in jail.

Third time lucky hopefully.

This was so awful, watching that as it all unfolded will stay with me forever

Reports are that Huntly has  been left  blind and not expected to  survive attack.

Tatey Bread

There won't be many tears shed for that brute.
I can still remember him being interviewed on tv about seeing the wee girls and that they seemed happy and fine. Cold stuff.
I reckon their families on the one hand will be glad to know he didn't have an easy time in prison, but maybe disappointed that his tough times are over. Death nearly too good for someone like that.

I wonder what ever happened to his girlfriend? I remember a while back she was released having served her time - not sure what to make of her.

Read an article yesterday about a journalist who  interviewed him.  Couple of things didn't seem right  about what Huntly  said . It  was him who sussed it out

Huntly said he  had taken the dog for a walk, and was washing it front of house, when he met the  girls walked  by. He said the girls only  asked about  the girlfriend (who was their teaching asst). He found it strange two little girls would see a man washing a big fluffy dog , and not   mention  it or ask it's name etc.

Second thing was  he said was he  knew how the girls would react  if they came across a  person  who  tried to kidnap them.  But he  wasn't at their school, didn't know the girls' character , so why would he have known this .

Journalist  knew things didn't add up , and  phoned the  police, and he was arrested.

There was reports in loads of places  around Britain  and Ireland The girlfriend was  being  relocated. Heard Coleraine  mentioned once. Surely wherever  she is , she'd be recognised with a new haircut  or glasses. She'd need a bit  of surgery to hide in the shadows.

Quote from: tbrick18 on March 09, 2026, 10:45:45 AMThere won't be many tears shed for that brute.
I can still remember him being interviewed on tv about seeing the wee girls and that they seemed happy and fine. Cold stuff.
I reckon their families on the one hand will be glad to know he didn't have an easy time in prison, but maybe disappointed that his tough times are over. Death nearly too good for someone like that.

I wonder what ever happened to his girlfriend? I remember a while back she was released having served her time - not sure what to make of her.

Saw something online yesterday that she was given a new identity after she was released from prison much like a witness protection type scenario. 

Quote from: AustinPowers on March 09, 2026, 11:21:19 AMRead an article yesterday about a journalist who  interviewed him.  Couple of things didn't seem right  about what Huntly  said . It  was him who sussed it out

Huntly said he  had taken the dog for a walk, and was washing it front of house, when he met the  girls walked  by. He said the girls only  asked about  the girlfriend (who was their teaching asst). He found it strange two little girls would see a man washing a big fluffy dog , and not   mention  it or ask it's name etc.

Second thing was  he said was he  knew how the girls would react  if they came across a  person  who  tried to kidnap them.  But he  wasn't at their school, didn't know the girls' character , so why would he have known this .

Journalist  knew things didn't add up , and  phoned the  police, and he was arrested.

There was reports in loads of places  around Britain  and Ireland The girlfriend was  being  relocated. Heard Coleraine  mentioned once. Surely wherever  she is , she'd be recognised with a new haircut  or glasses. She'd need a bit  of surgery to hide in the shadows.

I think for a female would certainly be easier to disguise yourself over the course of time. 

Quote from: AustinPowers on March 09, 2026, 11:21:19 AMRead an article yesterday about a journalist who  interviewed him.  Couple of things didn't seem right  about what Huntly  said . It  was him who sussed it out

Huntly said he  had taken the dog for a walk, and was washing it front of house, when he met the  girls walked  by. He said the girls only  asked about  the girlfriend (who was their teaching asst). He found it strange two little girls would see a man washing a big fluffy dog , and not   mention  it or ask it's name etc.

Second thing was  he said was he  knew how the girls would react  if they came across a  person  who  tried to kidnap them.  But he  wasn't at their school, didn't know the girls' character , so why would he have known this .

Journalist  knew things didn't add up , and  phoned the  police, and he was arrested.

There was reports in loads of places  around Britain  and Ireland The girlfriend was  being  relocated. Heard Coleraine  mentioned once. Surely wherever  she is , she'd be recognised with a new haircut  or glasses. She'd need a bit  of surgery to hide in the shadows.

Was a three part documentary Maxine on channel 5 a few years ago in relation to the case. Have saw a few documentaries in the past relating to the terrible crime and that reporter was very heavily involved in. (Can picture his face but cant recall name)

Quote from: tbrick18 on March 09, 2026, 10:45:45 AMThere won't be many tears shed for that brute.
I can still remember him being interviewed on tv about seeing the wee girls and that they seemed happy and fine. Cold stuff.
I reckon their families on the one hand will be glad to know he didn't have an easy time in prison, but maybe disappointed that his tough times are over. Death nearly too good for someone like that.

I wonder what ever happened to his girlfriend? I remember a while back she was released having served her time - not sure what to make of her.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/11/prisoner-accused-of-ian-huntley-murder-appears-in-court/At the time, Huntley lived with Maxine Carr who was a teaching assistant at Holly and Jessica's primary school.

He denied murdering the two 10-year-olds but was convicted after a trial at the Old Bailey in 2003.

Carr gave Huntley a false alibi and was jailed for 21 months for perverting the course of justice. She is now living under a new identity.

Its appropriate in my view how we all view Huntley and Carr. You'll find very few in the general public who will have much sympathy. In the next breath so many won't give a toss about America/Tump blowing up 168 kids in a school. What a rotten world we live in, any wonder I do not mix much.