Baby P

Dudess

walshb wrote: »

Hey, I am anti violence

LOL

walshb wrote: »

I too am pro death penalty for certain crimes and premeditated murder is one.
I wouldn't even try to categorise these, as that would be too messy.
You take a life, then you should lose your life. So, guilty of murder means
automatic death penalty in my view!

Other crimes include class A drug smuggling, and aggravated rape
or aggravated burglary

walshb wrote: »

Unfortunately it is a very sad and cruel world and at times, folks have been jailed and put to death wrongfully; but should that lead to the abolition completely?

Er... yes? Watch Fourteen Days In May about a young, black man from a poor background who was wrongfully executed for a cop killing, as well as a rape... because he was a young, black man from a poor background. To say we should have the death penalty, despite the possibilities of miscarriages of justice because this is a "cruel world" :rolleyes: is just galling.

The U.S. still has the penalty in many States.

What does that justify?

I know errors do occur, but mostly, the right person is convicted, and I would say the percentage is very high.

Oh well that's all right so, once there's only the odd person wrongfully executed. Guildford Four, Birmingham Six... ring a bell?

Terry wrote: »

WTF is this about?
I've no idea what this baby p thing is about.
Thread has no links. Just gossip.

Yeah, the mainstream media is not allowed to publish the mother and her boyfriend's identities. [AH Rabble-rousers]Special treatment![/AH Rabble-rousers]
Nah it's not, it's to protect the dead child's siblings. The identities are all over the net though.

walshb wrote: »

I don't think I limited my death penalty view to just murder. I said murder was one crime I would have the penalty for?

Your justification for the death penalty was "an eye for an eye" - a death sentence for e.g. burglary is hardly an eye for an eye...

Now, aggravated rape or aggravated burglary may not take a life, but they are heinous and deserve the penalty.

"They are heinous and deserve the death penalty" doesn't actually explain why they deserve the death penalty. You're "anti violence"? Really?

BTW, we as a nation are not long into our "No death penalty" law!

What does that justify?

Bottom line: Some folks believe in the penalty and others do not.
I am one who believes that it should exist!

"La la la la la la I can't hear you! I'm in favour of the death penalty because I just AM!"

Mrs JackDaniels wrote: »

Thank you at last someone on the same page as me!!

I love the way that subtly implies people here aren't that appalled by what those monsters did. And that people might even believe they deserve special treatment ("they'll be sent to a holiday camp" etc). Who in the name of Christ, with any semblance of normality about them, would believe that crime isn't anything less than horrific and that its perpetrators deserve special treatment? FFS. Right-minded people, including the justice system (I love how it's felt those behind the justice system actually WANT sick ****s to have an easy time of it) wish to see these people punished severely but not for the state to have the ability to end a life. We're supposed to be the civilised ones. Life sentence, solitary confinement - depriving someone of their freedom til the day they die, just because it's not depraved torture, doesn't mean it isn't a severe punishment.

Jake1 wrote: »

eh, no, I was not, I meant condone.

Allow me to give you the definition, Spelling Police,

Condone:to accept or allow behaviour that is wrong.

:rolleyes:

No actually, you meant "condemn". And in fairness, the comment was a light-hearted one. Such defensiveness was hardly necessary.

Mrs JackDaniels wrote: »

I'm saying that I think parents in particular would find this case even more disturbing then people that don't have kids

Superbly patronising - would you make comments like that to people whom you know can't have kids? Yeah sure, you'd have to be a parent to see the true horror... Really and truly, you wouldn't. Yes, you can see it from a different perspective, but we all know who truly evil it is.
And kickoutthejams was actually wondering what the hell you meant by that baffling "Guess you have no children? Which you will prob say you have now even if you haven't". I too am wondering what that bizarre comment meant...

Mrs JackDaniels wrote: »

sorry but this case and many more like it just make my blood boil, I have a two year old child and if anyone ever laid a finger on her I would want them to suffer more than just being locked up for 20 odd years

Jake1 wrote: »

Im with Mrs D on this one, if anyone hurt my children.. oh man, they'd be begging me to kill them by the time I finished with them. I would have nothing else I would want to live for, so Id spend the rest of my days avenging .
I think, most parents would feel pretty hollow and hopeless if something like this case was done to their children.

So, no I dont think Mrs D does have to go off and save the world instead of being angry.

Mrs JackDaniels wrote: »

Guessing you have no children?

Not that any of the above comments are particularly relevant to the topic, but I suppose they do give you an opportunity to preach to us how you're more informed than us non parents on the horror. It's ok, we know how horrific it is - going down the "Joe, I'm a mudder" road is not required. You'd defend your children to the last, like any decent parent would... um, good for you.

seems we wont agree on this, so I am just leaving it alone.:)

tech77

Jake1 wrote: »

seems we wont agree on this, so I am just leaving it alone.:)

Fair enough.
Nobody's going to condone you for leaving the thread.

Lockstep

Mrs JackDaniels wrote: »

I'm saying that I think parents in particular would find this case even more disturbing then people that don't have kids

Why?
I never understand this argument. If something is a terrible occurrence, it is a terrible occurence. Having kids doesn't predicate more sensitivity to this.
BabyP's mother had kids and yet she didn't seem to find it too outrageous to treat her kid the way she dod.

Mrs JackDaniels wrote: »

Btw there are plenty of people in uni with kids so no I don't think would be a major achievement

You don't think attending university while being a young parent is a major achievement?
Woah...

Lockstep

Jake1 wrote: »

here ye go, a little reminder of your joke if you forgot it...


Originally Posted by K4t
It's going to make a great film someday.

It'll be based on his book.

They say it will be a best cellar.

I find the whole case rather amusing.
The last time there was an Austrian dude who kept his family in the basement it was made into a musical and film.
__________________
boards.ie is super awesomey

Oh God, what a trainwreck of a quote. It gives me eyecancer. At least it looks palatable when it's requoted.

Jake1 wrote: »

But you are so far up the high moral ground you believe jokes of this kind are fine, yet rage is not?
I was merely pointing that out.

I havn't attempted to take the moral high ground. You've just assumed I am.
Do you honestly not see a difference between;
a specific sense of humour
Not seeing the point in raging against something which has happened and which can't be changed.

Jake1 wrote: »

Mrs D has no need to feel silly for feeling the way she does.

Noone has attempted to make her feel silly. You seem to have constructed this in your head.

Jake1 wrote: »

Slavery and Child rape are strangely unamusing to me.

I'm willing to bet that something you find amusing would be offensive to someone else.
Such is the nature of humour.

Yawn..........

midlandsmissus

First thing I felt when I heard about Baby P was.....pity for the social workers involved.

I used to do admin a few years ago in a social workers office, and let me tell you, it's not the social workers fault.

A single social worker had responsibility for 70 + cases , they were barely able to keep on top of what was going on in each. It is so easy for something to slip their atterntion.

I saw one social worker come back from a house visit who was traumatised as she had been sent to visit a single man on his own and he had smeared excrement everywhere including on her.

It is a terrbile system. I never saw people more traumatised and stressed than those social workers.

I can see how Baby P happened and I dont think it was the social workers fault.

walshb

Jake1 wrote: »

eh, no, I was not, I meant condone.

Allow me to give you the definition, Spelling Police,

Condone:to accept or allow behaviour that is wrong.

:rolleyes:

Chill jake, this has zero to do with spelling.
When I read your post, you seemed to be
backing the OP, and in doing so, you asked Dudess how
he/she can accept and ok one point from one poster but then condone the OP???

I just asumed you meant to say, "how can you accept and ok one poster and condemn another." That is how I interpreted it.

condone/condemn

I was wrong on that, I stand corrected, having reread my post.

walshb

Dudess wrote: »

Your justification for the death penalty was "an eye for an eye" - a death sentence for e.g. burglary is hardly an eye for an eye...
.

Dudess, I am almost certain I said "aggravated burglary." If I didn't, then I meant to. And if I did, then you are telling porkies and not quoting me properly.

Anyway, the whole issue of the penalty is emotive with pro and anti sides.
Hey, I abhore violence for the sake of it. Does this then mean I should
not be pro the penalty:rolleyes:. I know many people who abhore violence and who do believe in the penalty for certain crimes.

If some scumbag broke into my home, I wouldn't think twice about shooting him.
I am hardly gonna' stop and think, "I'm anti violence, I can't do this," and allow the maniac
to run riot and severley endanger me and my family!

Also, I'm sure many here are anti violence, but if any member of my family
was raped and butchered by some scumbag, I would be the first wanting to
pull the switch on the person.

walshb

I think a very important human trait is being overlooked here and that is "Revenge."

Even the gentlest and most non violent people on earth are capable of violence under certain circumstances, so when someone says that they are anti violence, I think educated folk can distinguish between this and the acts of revenge of self defence or self preservation.

Only when faced with really challenging and dangerous situations can
one appreciate the need to act in any way possible, and only when someone has lost a loved one under heinous circumstances, can they really know for definite if they are PRO or ANTI the death penalty

quite right. none of us can really say for sure I suppose. I just think Id go mental But there again, i could use the forgiveness route.Ive seen a lot of parents of murdered children show this trait, and I do admire them for it.
Some even say they will pray for the perpetrators

Acacia

Dudess wrote: »

I don't think anyone's suggesting she should apologise for feeling rage. I feel rage too, but it's best to separate that rage from recommending how the justice system conduct itself.

Precisely. As I've said before, such rage would be better used if aimed at the social services that allowed this to happen. But, y'know, ranting on an internet forum is much more fun.
It's also a great way to feel better about oneself by trotting out the old ''As a mother...'' argument and complaining about how the world has gone to sh1t...but it doesn't really solve much in the long run. Or indeed help kids like baby P.

walshb

Acacia wrote: »

Precisely. As I've said before, such rage would be better used if aimed at the social services that allowed this to happen. But, y'know, ranting on an internet forum is much more fun.
It's also a great way to feel better about oneself by trotting out the old ''As a mother...'' argument and complaining about how the world has gone to sh1t...but it doesn't really solve much in the long run. Or indeed help kids like baby P.

Rage? Isn't tis a little OTT. So the OP asked a question that most can
relate to and the OP is accused of "raging.":rolleyes:

Yes, we know that things need to be addressed and changed, so start a thread if that's what you and others are looking for. This thread is about folks feelings about the case and how they may deal with it, violently or otherwise. It's just a thread!

Acacia

walshb wrote: »

Rage? Isn't tis a little OTT. So the OP asked a question that most can
relate to and the OP is accused of "raging.":rolleyes:

If I'm not mistaken, she said herself she was angry/raging when she made the thread, and that she didn't feel she should apologise for it.

walshb wrote: »

Yes, we know that things need to be addressed and changed, so start a thread if that's what you and others are looking for. This thread is about folks feelings about the case and how they may deal with it, violently or otherwise. It's just a thread!

I don't see why I have to start another thread about these things, as they are closely related to the topic at hand. I'm merely stating that the blame and rage and pitchforks-at-dawn could be levelled at the social services as well as the perpetrators. The difference being that complaining and campaigning in such a way would be more productive that posting torture fantasies.

As for folks' feelings about the case and how they may deal with it- that's precisely what I am talking about- cases like this would be better dealt with, with a harsh sentence and some investigation into the social services. And my feelings are that it would be barbaric to stoop to the same level as these scumbags and take human life.

Dudess

walshb wrote: »

Dudess, I am almost certain I said "aggravated burglary." If I didn't, then I meant to. And if I did, then you are telling porkies and not quoting me properly.

Not telling porkies, but yes, not quoting you properly. My point still stands though: appalling as aggravated burglary is, the death penalty for it is not an eye for an eye.

If some scumbag broke into my home, I wouldn't think twice about shooting him.
I am hardly gonna' stop and think, "I'm anti violence, I can't do this," and allow the maniac to run riot and severley endanger me and my family!

Also, I'm sure many here are anti violence, but if any member of my family
was raped and butchered by some scumbag, I would be the first wanting to
pull the switch on the person.

walshb wrote: »

I think a very important human trait is being overlooked here and that is "Revenge."

Even the gentlest and most non violent people on earth are capable of violence under certain circumstances, so when someone says that they are anti violence, I think educated folk can distinguish between this and the acts of revenge of self defence or self preservation.

Only when faced with really challenging and dangerous situations can
one appreciate the need to act in any way possible, and only when someone has lost a loved one under heinous circumstances, can they really know for definite if they are PRO or ANTI the death penalty

While all of the above points are reasonable, they have no relevance to the justice system, which is supposed to be objective and unbiased. And that is what I'm focusing on, whether a state has the right to take a life.

Jake1 wrote: »

quite right. none of us can really say for sure I suppose. I just think Id go mental But there again, i could use the forgiveness route.Ive seen a lot of parents of murdered children show this trait, and I do admire them for it.
Some even say they will pray for the perpetrators

Of course you'd probably go mental. I know I would. I can't understand how anyone would forgive something like this, but we're all different I suppose.
Those who are opposed to the death penalty are not saying people aren't allowed feel rage at this atrocity. If Baby P's father got his hands on the ***** who butchered his child, I wouldn't give a **** what they did to him... but I would give a **** about what the state is capable of. I don't give two hoots about the lowlives who killed Peter (Baby P).

walshb

My view is simple: I am pro death penalty and I do respect those who are not; but I find it irritating that some of these anti death penalty activists have the gall to not only disagree, but to slate those in favor? This is so arrogant.

If I was anti death penalty, I could still see the views of those who are
pro death penalty. It's only when someone is actually faced with
the situation, then they can truly say how they are or feel.

Say if I or anyone here lost a loved one in a heinous and horrific
manner, are we certain we would be still anti death penalty?

So, if we cannot say we'd be still anti death penalty, why slate those who
are pro death penalty?

BTW, I am not saying folks here are slating, it's just a general comment!

Dudess, has the State a right to take a life? Currently, NO.
Do I believe it did or should still have the right? Yes!

Also, Dudess, I never ever said that the death penalty should be ONLY for
cases involving an eye for an eye

Please, read what I wrote. I said MURDER was ONE crime that
I would be in favor of the penalty, not the ONLY crime!

Davei141

These threads always descend into a "If anyone done this to my child/niece/horse i would do life to kill them! :@ or HOW COULD ANYONE DO SUCH A THING!"

I always find it a bit cringeworthy that people feel the need to go on about how they would kill/maim/torture if anyone touched *insert whoever here*. Who are you trying to convince? Nobody cares about your hypothetical day dreams. Each person trying to out do each other in a show of "who loves their kids more". This thread is about a dead kid and his killers, its not a showcase for your need to validate yourself to strangers with a sick hypothetical tragedy that you have dreamed about your own kid's.

Dudess

walshb wrote: »

Rage? Isn't tis a little OTT. So the OP asked a question that most can relate to and the OP is accused of "raging.":rolleyes:

She said herself she was: obligatory :rolleyes:

Yes, we know that things need to be addressed and changed, so start a thread if that's what you and others are looking for. This thread is about folks feelings about the case and how they may deal with it, violently or otherwise. It's just a thread!

I don't see how you get to decide what goes on or doesn't go on this thread. It's a discussion about the Baby P case from all angles, not just a platform for people to type out their depraved torture fantasies.

walshb wrote: »

My view is simple: I am pro death penalty and I do respect those who are not; but I find it irritating that some of these anti death penalty activists have the gall to not only disagree, but to slate those in favor? This is so arrogant.

Probably because of some of the sh1t pro death penalty lobbyists come up with: e.g. your reasoning that "Ah shur, a few miscarriages of justice - what harm..."

It's only when someone is actually faced with the situation, then they can truly say how they are or feel.

Again, that is irrelevant. Emotions do not and should not dictate the justice system. If it happened to a relative of mine, yeah I probably would want awful things done to the perpetrator... but I would also be in no position to decide how the law operates - because of how biased I would be.

Also, Dudess, I never ever said that the death penalty should be ONLY for cases involving an eye for an eye

Please, read what I wrote. I said MURDER was ONE crime that
I would be in favor of the penalty, not the ONLY crime!

Well you said some overly simplistic comment like "you take a life, yours gets taken!" Seems like "eye to eye" to me...

Lockstep

Jake1 wrote: »

Yawn..........

WHy bother posting if that's all you've got to say?

walshb

Davei141 wrote: »

These threads always descend into a "If anyone done this to my child/niece/horse i would do life to kill them! :@ or HOW COULD ANYONE DO SUCH A THING!"

I always find it a bit cringeworthy that people feel the need to go on about how they would kill/maim/torture if anyone touched *insert whoever here*. Who are you trying to convince? Nobody cares about your hypothetical day dreams. Each person trying to out do each other in a show of "who loves their kids more". This thread is about a dead kid and his killers, its not a showcase for your need to validate yourself to strangers with a sick hypothetical tragedy that you have dreamed about your own kid's.

Dave, of all the posts on the thread, very few have been detailed or graphic or heinous.
I never once described what I would do. I simply said that I was pro the death penalty
for certain crimes.

walshb

Dudess wrote: »

Well you said some overly simplistic comment like "you take a life, yours gets taken!" Seems like "eye to eye" to me...

I don't know, maybe this is all too hard for you to comprehend. Murder is a life taken and I believe that if you take a life and are convicted of MURDER in this taking of life, then the penalty should be applied.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue? You want to use the eye for an eye and then try to use this when you misquoted me on the burglary issue, fair enough.

I will refrain from here on in with debating you, as you cannot seem
to stick to the script. I distinctly said that murder was ONE crime of some, that I
would be in favor of the death penalty

By all means quote me, but deliberately misleading and misquoting says
more about you than I!

It's not like I said that the death penalty should apply to ALL crime.
I never said that!

Dudess

walshb wrote: »

I don't know, maybe this is all too hard for you to comprehend. Murder is a life taken and I believe that if you take a life and are convicted of MURDER in this taking of life, then the penalty should be applied.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue? You want to use the eye for an eye and then try to use this when you misquoted me on the burglary issue, fair enough.

I will refrain from here on in with debating you, as you cannot seem
to stick to the script. I distinctly said that murder was ONE crime of some, that I
would be in favor of the death penalty

By all means quote me, but deliberately misleading and misquoting says
more about you than I!

Well basically my point is: if the death penalty is suitable for murder because of the (old testament) concept of "an eye for an eye", how is it suitable when the crime in question doesn't end a life?

It's not like I said that the death penalty should apply to ALL crime.
I never said that!

I don't recall you saying that either (and I never said or even implied you did) but what difference does that make?

walshb

Dudess wrote: »

Well basically my point is: if the death penalty is suitable for murder because of the (old testament) concept of "an eye for an eye", how is it suitable when the crime in question doesn't end a life?

I don't recall you saying that either (and I never said or even implied you did) but what difference does that make?

Well, I'd rather leave the bible out of this as I am not that religious to be honest.

Now, whether or not the penalty should apply for crimes other than murder is
debatable and I believe, as others do, that it should apply and in some countries, it does apply!

So, I gave two other crimes, one being Class A drug smuggling, which absolute destroys lives and communities and is a major reason why Dublin's inner city was
blighted for decades. It leads to so many other problems and is a serious catalyst
for the spreading of crime.

I also said that aggravated rape or aggravated burglary should be punishable by
death. Need I give reasons? I think any half educated person can
comprehend the horror and pain to the victim/victims from
these two crimes

Davei141

walshb wrote: »

Dave, of all the posts on the thread, very few have been detailed or graphic or heinous.
I never once described what I would do. I simply said that I was pro the death penalty
for certain crimes.

I didn't have you in mind typing that post tbh. It's just the usual outrage whenever something depraved happens involving kid's lead by the overly emotional parent's brigade. Because if you aint singing from the cut his balls off hymn sheet you must not love your kid's.

The guy will spend the next 15 years or more of his life completely isolated due to the nature of the crime, climbing the walls day after day. Some would like to believe he will be having great craic behind bars drinking champagne and eating steak, having an ole sing song with his fellow con's. Believe that if it helps elevate the rage just that bit further.

walshb

Davei141 wrote: »

I didn't have you in mind typing that post tbh. It's just the usual outrage whenever something depraved happens involving kid's lead by the overly emotional parent's brigade. Because if you aint singing from the cut his balls off hymn sheet you must not love your kid's.

The guy will spend the next 15 years or more of his life completely isolated due to the nature of the crime, climbing the walls day after day. Some would like to believe he will be having great craic behind bars drinking champagne and eating steak, having an ole sing song with his fellow con's. Believe that if it helps elevate the rage just that bit further.

How does anyone know exactly how he will be spending his days?

Well, going on other cases we have heard of, many of these heinous monsters
get all their meals served, have access to computers, tv and an education?
Pool tables and supervised day releases and 25 percent off
for good behaviour. So, saying that they are getting a rough deal
in prison is not necessarily true!

Now, I am not saying starvation is needed, but we do hear that these monsters
are getting privileges that I would consider wholly
unacceptable.

If I were in charge, these prisoners would simply be allowed air to breathe, fluids to
drink, food to eat and the odd loosening of their muscles. Anything else would
not be allowed. 23 hrs isolation inside their cell. They leave to eat and that
is it! And that's because I would be forced to allow these things happen!

Now, if it were my child or someone close to me, I doubt even I would be able
to forgive and allow prison to be the punishment!

Now, if folks think this is me being cruel, then maybe they should think
about what this and other monsters like this have done!

Davei141

walshb wrote: »

How does anyone know exactly how he will be spending his days?

Well, going on other cases we have heard of, many of these heinous monsters
get all their meals served, have access to computers, tv and an education?
Pool tables and supervised day releases and 25 percent off
for good behaviour. So, saying that they are getting a rough deal
in prison is not necessarily true!

Now, I am not saying starvation is needed, but we do hear that these monsters
are getting privileges that I would consider wholly
unacceptable.

If I were in charge, these prisoners would simply be allowed air to breathe, fluids to
drink, food to eat and the odd loosening of their muscles. Anything else would
not be allowed. 23 hrs isolation inside their cell. They leave to eat and that
is it! And that's because I would be forced to allow these things happen!

Now, if it were my child or someone close to me, I doubt even I would be able
to forgive and allow prison to be the punishment!

Now, if folks think this is me being cruel, then maybe they should think
about what this and other monsters like this have done!

You are deluded plain and simple. Earlier on in the thread you were saying how the other con's would probably get a kick out of the Baby P stories this guy would tell? Back on planet earth child abusers in prison are isolated so they aren't beat to death. And being isolated for so many year's is mental torture. Not everything has to be physical just to quench your desire.

walshb

Davei141 wrote: »

You are deluded plain and simple. Earlier on in the thread you were saying how the other con's would probably get a kick out of the Baby P stories this guy would tell? Back on planet earth child abusers in prison are isolated so they aren't beat to death. And being isolated for so many year's is mental torture. Not everything has to be physical just to quench your desire.

I said that other cons would be also heinous monsters. I said usually they are housed together. Read and do so slowly before trying to ridicule!

This monster will more than likely be housed with other vile animals who
will get kicks from the stories. Do you think all the rapists and child killers in prison are somehow decent?

Child abusers and rapists are not isolated completely, usually they are housed with
fellow rapists and child abusers and are kept away from the general prison population.

I never said otherwise, so please don't be misquoting me!

Now, you seem to think that all these sex offenders are having a terrible emotional
time inside. How can you know this?

I have read many examples where thee sex offenders are getting an education, have access to television and the internet etc etc.

So, what is deluded with this?

walshb

For those who think they will get a hard time in prison by others in there, think again. Those in prison aren't bloody angels either and the baby P offender will more than likely be locked up with other heinous and nasty bastards. They will probably get 'kicks' from the stories told about baby P.
It's messed up world we live in!

Now, maybe if he was housed with "ordinary decent criminals," he may face a rough time


Dave, above was what I wrote in post #27

See, again I have been misquoted deliberately!

walshb

Latchy, this guy will be housed with other sick ****s, so how will he be any
different. Honestly, how many cases have you read of where a nasty git got beaten to death in prison because of HIS crimes. They are all sick vermin where this guy is going! I tell you, he'll be a hero to some of them!



Above is post #32 written by me! Housed with other sick creeps, hence, how will
HE be any different!