Jimbo 133 Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 it was either that or send him on a windsurfing holiday in the lake District. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17876 Posted March 21, 2006 Author Share Posted March 21, 2006 it was either that or send him on a windsurfing holiday in the lake District. 108666[/snapback] At this time of year? It's freezing! That's practically police brutality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34943 Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 "You disappoint mey Jarge. Yew are still nowuh clowuhser to catching mey." What a tool. Glad he's doing some decent prison time tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themags 0 Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 "You disappoint mey Jarge. Yew are still nowuh clowuhser to catching mey." What a tool. Glad he's doing some decent prison time tbh. 108671[/snapback] was he welsh or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 8 years then. Got off lightly imo. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yo...ire/4828828.stm 108663[/snapback] About right I would say. I am absolutely gob-smacked that some people seem to think he deserves little more than a slap on the wrist because he's unlikely to do it again. Like it or not, he played some part in the death of 3 innocent women by misdirecting the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj 17 Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 "You disappoint mey Jarge. Yew are still nowuh clowuhser to catching mey." What a tool. Glad he's doing some decent prison time tbh. 108671[/snapback] was he welsh or something? 108679[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 so we bang up an old alcoholic mackem for 5 years - 25 years after his "crime" We finish up paying for him (and no doubt he'll switch to drugs) and he fills a cell that should be used for the violent...... Beats me, it honestly does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 I fail to see what difference it makes if someone is caught 1 day or 25 years after their crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 so we bang up an old alcoholic mackem for 5 years - 25 years after his "crime" We finish up paying for him (and no doubt he'll switch to drugs) and he fills a cell that should be used for the violent...... Beats me, it honestly does 109544[/snapback] Why the quotations? Are you suggesting he didn't commit a crime or that it was an insignificant one? To me, his actions were indefensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catmag 336 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 (edited) so we bang up an old alcoholic mackem for 5 years - 25 years after his "crime" We finish up paying for him (and no doubt he'll switch to drugs) and he fills a cell that should be used for the violent...... Beats me, it honestly does 109544[/snapback] Why would he switch to drugs, Rob? That's a bit of a sweeping generalisation isn't it? He deserves to be locked up. Women were brutally murdered as a result of his actions Edited March 23, 2006 by catmag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 so we bang up an old alcoholic mackem for 5 years - 25 years after his "crime" We finish up paying for him (and no doubt he'll switch to drugs) and he fills a cell that should be used for the violent...... Beats me, it honestly does 109544[/snapback] Why would he switch to drugs, Rob? That's a bit of a sweeping generalisation isn't it? He deserves to be locked up. Women were brutally murdered as a result of his actions 109574[/snapback] He thinks everyone's on drugs tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 14112 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 so we bang up an old alcoholic mackem for 5 years - 25 years after his "crime" We finish up paying for him (and no doubt he'll switch to drugs) and he fills a cell that should be used for the violent...... Beats me, it honestly does 109544[/snapback] Why would he switch to drugs, Rob? That's a bit of a sweeping generalisation isn't it? He deserves to be locked up. Women were brutally murdered as a result of his actions 109574[/snapback] He thinks everyone's on drugs tbh. 109582[/snapback] Delusional and paranoid, you say? Hm..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17876 Posted March 23, 2006 Author Share Posted March 23, 2006 I can really see why you antagonize Leazes so much Rob. You give us do-gooders a bad name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 I'm with Rob on this one, I don't see the point of banging someone up unless it prevents the crime, the blokes obviously mentally ill. The law should not be a tool of vengeance. A simple hoax leading the police that far astray shows a serious flaw in the system, I bet if it happened again they'd be much better prepared. I'm going to go and hide now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3230 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 You know some people should check the dictionary for the difference between liberism and gros stupidity. Ho w about Rob W explaining to the families of the 3 girls murdered after Sutcliffe was picked up questioned and dismissed because he was not from the North East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 You know some people should check the dictionary for the difference between liberism and gros stupidity. Ho w about Rob W explaining to the families of the 3 girls murdered after Sutcliffe was picked up questioned and dismissed because he was not from the North East. 109668[/snapback] I'm not sure victims should be actively involved in deciding punishments tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 You know some people should check the dictionary for the difference between liberism and gros stupidity. Ho w about Rob W explaining to the families of the 3 girls murdered after Sutcliffe was picked up questioned and dismissed because he was not from the North East. 109668[/snapback] I checked in the dixtionary and couldn't find it I think those people saying the sentence was excessive do so more out of selfishness. Why should we pay to hole the daft fecker up when he's not a danger and doesn't require re-habilatation (he hasn't re-offended in 25 years)? No one's saying let him off scot free, but a hefty fine would be satisfactory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 I believe the Judge said he was giving him 8 years as an example to others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17876 Posted March 23, 2006 Author Share Posted March 23, 2006 So if I commit a crime, any crime, and I'm unlikely to reoffend or need rehabilitation, I should be let off scot free then? Regardless of the consequences of my crime? Or is that only if I'm not caught for 25 years, thus proving I'm unlikely to reoffend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 (edited) So if I commit a crime, any crime, and I'm unlikely to reoffend or need rehabilitation, I should be let off scot free then? Regardless of the consequences of my crime? Or is that only if I'm not caught for 25 years, thus proving I'm unlikely to reoffend? 109697[/snapback] If you commit violent crime with a weapon or even without a weapon if it's severe enough you should be put down, in my opinion. Why, something you want to get off your chest? I would deal differently with a lot of non-violent crimes though, yes. Edited March 23, 2006 by DotBum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 I checked in the dixtionary and couldn't find it I think those people saying the sentence was excessive do so more out of selfishness. Why should we pay to hole the daft fecker up when he's not a danger and doesn't require re-habilatation (he hasn't re-offended in 25 years)? No one's saying let him off scot free, but a hefty fine would be satisfactory. 109675[/snapback] It's not about taxes for me, although that would be an obvious selling point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 So if I commit a crime, any crime, and I'm unlikely to reoffend or need rehabilitation, I should be let off scot free then? Regardless of the consequences of my crime? Or is that only if I'm not caught for 25 years, thus proving I'm unlikely to reoffend? 109697[/snapback] You must've missed the bit where I said "No one's saying let him off scot free, but a hefty fine would be satisfactory." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17876 Posted March 23, 2006 Author Share Posted March 23, 2006 So if I commit a crime, any crime, and I'm unlikely to reoffend or need rehabilitation, I should be let off scot free then? Regardless of the consequences of my crime? Or is that only if I'm not caught for 25 years, thus proving I'm unlikely to reoffend? 109697[/snapback] You must've missed the bit where I said "No one's saying let him off scot free, but a hefty fine would be satisfactory." 109703[/snapback] Aye, fining a jobless alcoholic is really going to hurt him, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 So if I commit a crime, any crime, and I'm unlikely to reoffend or need rehabilitation, I should be let off scot free then? Regardless of the consequences of my crime? Or is that only if I'm not caught for 25 years, thus proving I'm unlikely to reoffend? 109697[/snapback] You must've missed the bit where I said "No one's saying let him off scot free, but a hefty fine would be satisfactory." 109703[/snapback] Aye, fining a jobless alcoholic is really going to hurt him, isn't it? 109705[/snapback] But supplying food and lodgings, getting him off the drink and probably teaching him a trade is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17876 Posted March 23, 2006 Author Share Posted March 23, 2006 So if I commit a crime, any crime, and I'm unlikely to reoffend or need rehabilitation, I should be let off scot free then? Regardless of the consequences of my crime? Or is that only if I'm not caught for 25 years, thus proving I'm unlikely to reoffend? 109697[/snapback] You must've missed the bit where I said "No one's saying let him off scot free, but a hefty fine would be satisfactory." 109703[/snapback] Aye, fining a jobless alcoholic is really going to hurt him, isn't it? 109705[/snapback] But supplying food and lodgings, getting him off the drink and probably teaching him a trade is? 109716[/snapback] Loss of freedom is, yes. As for detoxing him, that's good, isn't it? And the state already pay for the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now