CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

masona · 6 Jan 2006

Freddie said:
i-fit said:

I have read the thread in full and find it troubleing that no-one has mentioned justice.

Click to expand...

I have read parts of it and find it troubling that some think no one else is allowed to have a view or opinion on things other than theirs

You're right Freddie, I'm getting to the stage of fightening of saying anything right. Look at this one,

ban-all-sheds said:
masona said:

I would bring back the death penalty.

Click to expand...

Then you are an ignorant, violent, uncivilised ****.

I have now changed my mind regarding the death penalty because of reading this topic but I don't need this heavy handed attitude. Ban should've said " masona, do you realise according to my opinion that the death penalty makes you ignorant, violent, uncivilised ****?".

I didn't realised until Ban-all-shed pointed that out to me and I gave it a lot of thought, therefore he maybe right or wrong, but that for me to decide and I, or we don't need that bully attitude. If you don't give people a chance to express their views, what the point otherwise if it's these people live in a perfect world that can't do anything wrong, then god help us.

Moz · 6 Jan 2006

hello Masona
hows things ?, did you have a good Xmas, an new year ?
an hows that lad of yours .. GREAT I HOPE ..

empip · 6 Jan 2006

kendor said:
david and julie said:

Do you mean replies like this one to genuine comments?

masona wrote:
I would bring back the death penalty.

Then you are an ignorant, violent, uncivilised ****.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

yes i would say that's uncalled for especially as Mas is one of the more quietly spoken on here and as far as i know has never been insulting to anyone on here.

That was nothing compared to the most virulent post I have ever seen here aimed at FWL_Engineer AKA Big Spark back in 2004 .. It was retracted and an apology rendered ... But it was more than a little disquieting.
Perhaps we just do not understand the 'forum' culture...
This may give an insight :-
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/index.htm You'll not find us all doing the ... walk !!

masona · 6 Jan 2006

Moz said:
hello Masona
hows things ?, did you have a good Xmas, an new year ?
an hows that lad of yours .. GREAT I HOPE ..

Now that's better, anyway you got to woo JulieL back who had now temporary left us I think(?)

Come on Moz make her laugh again

My lad doing well, a bit quite, these things take time though.

david and julie · 7 Jan 2006

Masona I have just asked Julie and she said she will not be coming back onto this forum.

She has asked admid to remove her name and details from the site. This has not yet happened but they did say they wait a couple of days.I would expect Julie's details to go by Sat or Sun at the latest.

ban-all-sheds · 7 Jan 2006

david and julie said:
Where did I said it was OK to kill innocent people? indeed I said the opposite.

None of us know how many mistakes there have been and fair enough, one would be too many.

Click to expand...

I don't have an awful anything, I just don't have the same opinion as you which is my right. YOU are the one with the attitude as you have chosen to ignore parts of my comment, for your own ends.

But you've also been selective in highlighting what you wrote. Yes, you did say "one would be too many". But the full quote is:

david and julie said:
None of us know how many mistakes there have been and fair enough, one would be too many. That said, how many people have died at the hands of re-offenders? Obviously the DP would have saved those.

To write "That said...." is to say that against the downside of innocent people being killed should be set the fact that innocent lives would be saved by preventing murderers from killing again. You may wriggle and claim that you never actually said it was "OK to kill innocent people" but clearly the sense of what you wrote was that the wider view should be taken and the overall balance of innocent deaths considered, so hermes was right to say what he did.

To me, the general consensus of the "pro's" was that the cases which were proven beyond doubt, should carry the ultimate penalty.

Click to expand...

Who decides whether a case is proven beyond doubt. According to you, those poor women who were wrongly imprisoned for murdering their children when the kids died from cot death would have been killed by the state, after all, they were imprisoned because their case was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Click to expand...

Where did I say I would have killed women who's kids died from cot death? Your learning to read and properly digest information would help before making spurious comments.

Read the highlighted words, which are yours. Those women were imprisoned because there were trials and at those trials it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that they were guilty - that's what being found guilty means. At their trials, the guilt of the Birmingham Four, the Guildford Six, The Bridgewater Four, Judith Ward, Stefan Kiszko, the Maguire Seven, Andrew Evans, Stephen Downing, Timothy Evans - the list goes on and on - was found to be sufficiently beyond doubt for them to be sentenced to imprisonment (and in one case hanged) for their responsibility for the deaths of dozens of people.

How many of these innocent people would you have wanted put to death at the time?

Freddie · 7 Jan 2006

david and julie said:
Masona I have just asked Julie and she said she will not be coming back onto this forum.

She has asked admid to remove her name and details from the site. This has not yet happened but they did say they wait a couple of days.I would expect Julie's details to go by Sat or Sun at the latest.

Well give my regards to Julie Dave and blow her a big kiss from Freddie cause he will miss her as will others

Moz · 7 Jan 2006

Julie/l/b

keyplayer · 7 Jan 2006

empip said:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/index.htm

Some rather familiar characters here!!

Softus · 7 Jan 2006

Slogger said:
WHAT would u do softus if you knew where this man lived and you knew where the family of the murderd kids lived

a say nothing and ignore him
b be his friend ? as he has served his time
c go to town on him good stylye ( two smoking barrels )
d tell the family where he is

e none of the above cos your above it all

Honestly? I don't know. How would I know? The only reason that you know what you would do is because you say and do the same thing in all circumstances that you don't like, which is to kill, or threaten to kill, or encite to kill, or talk about killing, or think about killing, or, I suspect, dream about killing.

ban-all-sheds · 7 Jan 2006

david and julie said:
Ban-all-sheds said,

I'm not losing. If you think that failing to change your mind means I'm losing then the same applies to you, as you have failed equally to change mine.

Click to expand...

I am not interested in or have I tried to change your mind. You are too pig hesded and arrogant for me to achieve that. However, you have lost the debate by your torrents of abuse aimed at anyone who has a different viewpoint to yours. Even the Mod had to delete a part of your post due to your uncivilised manners.

As I have said, this goes far beyond a mere "different viewpoint". This is, literally, a matter of life and death, and I do not, and never will, apologise for doing my best to make it absolutely clear how repugnant I find people who think that violence and cruelty are appropriate.

And as I have also observed before, the Mod seems to have a very twisted view of what is acceptable:

Acceptable - expressing a desire that people should be tortured and killed.

Unacceptable - expressing outrage at the idea of torture and killing or suggesting that it is uncivilised to want to see people tortured and killed.

and starts getting nasty,

So I'm nasty, but you, who would like to torture, maim, and kill people, are not nasty?

Click to expand...

Yes you are nasty, your are nasty to forum members who disagree with you. Please show me where I have said I personally want kill people, my advocating the return of DP, by the state doesn't make me a personally a killer.

Yes it does.

Consider the number of cases where someone has been found guilty of murder when they hired a "hit man" to actually carry out the task. Even though they personally didn't kill the victim the law is absolutely clear on their guilt. If you arrange for someone to kill on your behalf then you are considered a killer.

MODERATOR, I strongly resent this members accusations which are contained in this quote.

who would like to torture, maim, and kill people

Click to expand...

This is totally at odds with forum rules. You have already told him/her earlier about his/her treatment and personal abuse of other members, it is getting to the point where you can't speak because of this OTT behaviour.

Did I misunderstand this, then:

Could anyone with doubts tell me truthfully what they would do with this pile of utter lowlife.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/4579802.stm

Keep them comfy in jail should we ban because they are sick? I'm uncivilised? Far starters I would see what a ball pein hammer is really for and cobblers to any do gooder who said they don't deserve it.

Did you actually mean that you would go off and investigate the metalworking uses of such a hammer? Please don't insult our intelligence - you clearly meant that you'd like to use the hammer on those people.

You called me a killer, I have never killed anyone so this is a lie.

Sophistry. You want people to be killed. You would welcome the killing of people. You are in favour of people being killed.

ban-all-sheds · 7 Jan 2006

david and julie said:
But the truth is I haven't advocated killing anyone.

Err - you've said you want to see the death penalty reintroduced.

The death penalty means that as a penalty, people are put to death, i.e. killed.

So where is the "truth" in "I haven't advocated killing anyone"???

ban-all-sheds · 7 Jan 2006

kendor said:
Freddie said:

i-fit said:

I have read the thread in full and find it troubleing that no-one has mentioned justice.

Click to expand...

I have read parts of it and find it troubling that some think no one else is allowed to have a view or opinion on things other than theirs

Click to expand...

well said fred! everyone should be entitled to their opinion without it ending in a fight.

Does an entitlement to an opinion include the entitlement to express that opinion?

david and julie · 7 Jan 2006

Boring-all-sheds wrote,

To write "That said...." is to say that against the downside of innocent people being killed should be set the fact that innocent lives would be saved by preventing murderers from killing again. You may wriggle and claim that you never actually said it was "OK to kill innocent people" but clearly the sense of what you wrote was that the wider view should be taken and the overall balance of innocent deaths considered, so hermes was right to say what he did.

Which is his interpretation of what he wants to believe. The reality is I didn't actually say it is OK to kill innocent people. I clearly don't believe in harming innocent people, this is why I support the DP, it is the only guaranteed way of assuring these people can't re-offend, which is happening all to often.

Besides that, do you not think hermes can speak for themselves?

Read the highlighted words, which are yours. Those women were imprisoned because there were trials and at those trials it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that they were guilty - that's what being found guilty means?

.
I have separated your comments here for clarity.
I presume the above refers to the cot death comments? if so I have already commented on this so it is pointless to repeat myself.

At their trials, the guilt of the Birmingham Four, the Guildford Six, The Bridgewater Four, Judith Ward, Stefan Kiszko, the Maguire Seven, Andrew Evans, Stephen Downing, Timothy Evans - the list goes on and on - was found to be sufficiently beyond doubt for them to be sentenced to imprisonment (and in one case hanged) for their responsibility for the deaths of dozens of people.

How many of these innocent people would you have wanted put to death at the time

None if they were innocent.

ban-all-sheds · 7 Jan 2006

kendor said:
david and julie said:

Do you mean replies like this one to genuine comments?

masona wrote:
I would bring back the death penalty.

Then you are an ignorant, violent, uncivilised ****.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

yes i would say that's uncalled for especially as Mas is one of the more quietly spoken on here and as far as i know has never been insulting to anyone on here.

Someone else who doesn't get it.

I know he has now retracted, but at that point he had not.

The death penalty means killing people.

What masona effectively said:
I want people to be killed.

Do you not think that wanting people to be killed is a violent and uncivilised attitude? Can you not see that people who want that are violent and uncivilised people?

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Moz

david and julie

Moz

david and julie

Similar threads