Raggamuffin wrote:Lady Murasaki wrote:Raggamuffin wrote:Some of you guests don't seem to able to grasp what's really happening here. Do you actually think that Denise Fergus will get anywhere then?
What she''s angry about is the sentence they got for killing James in the first place. I actually agree that it was too lenient. Now we've got this chap who was at the same place telling everyone how Venables had no remorse and got loads of privileges, which isn't going to help. What Denise wants is for Venables to go to prison now for a very long time to serve the sentence she thinks he should have had back then when he killed James, but is that ever going to happen? He got 40 months, so they'd need a good reason not to let him out after that time.
She probably wants him gone from the earth, regardless of what the press are saying.
Maybe so, although it's not really what the press is saying, it's what she says to the press. If she does want him dead, she's never said so.
Don't you think she'd still be angry though? I think most of her anger is with the legal system, and that wouldn't change even if he was dead.
Meanwhile, prison inmates are allegedly circulating photos, as are others This is contempt of court, so shouldn't they be prosecuted?
Guest wrote:What the liberal infested probation service (the warboys releasing probation service) want is for denise fergus to shut up about her dead son so they can continue their little liberal experiment going without anyone drawing attention to it.
I would imagine Denise wouldnt really be very happy with that so carrys on shining the light.
Its easy to be a liberal soft justice exponent when it doesnt effect you. I was probably guilty of that at one time. Then not too far from me a dangerous paedophile was secretively parachuted into a run down estate comunity (thanks probation service!). The residents kicked off like fuck when it became known. I found myself fully understanding there cause. I wont accept adding to any risk to my kids and thats absolute. If thats a problem for paedophiles rehab....fuck em.
Lady Murasaki wrote:Raggamuffin wrote:Lady Murasaki wrote:Raggamuffin wrote:Some of you guests don't seem to able to grasp what's really happening here. Do you actually think that Denise Fergus will get anywhere then?
What she''s angry about is the sentence they got for killing James in the first place. I actually agree that it was too lenient. Now we've got this chap who was at the same place telling everyone how Venables had no remorse and got loads of privileges, which isn't going to help. What Denise wants is for Venables to go to prison now for a very long time to serve the sentence she thinks he should have had back then when he killed James, but is that ever going to happen? He got 40 months, so they'd need a good reason not to let him out after that time.
She probably wants him gone from the earth, regardless of what the press are saying.
Maybe so, although it's not really what the press is saying, it's what she says to the press. If she does want him dead, she's never said so.
Don't you think she'd still be angry though? I think most of her anger is with the legal system, and that wouldn't change even if he was dead.
Meanwhile, prison inmates are allegedly circulating photos, as are others This is contempt of court, so shouldn't they be prosecuted?
I haven't really followed the case so I'm not sure what's been said. All I can offer is that as a parent, knowing my young child was harmed and killed in that way is not something I would find peace with unless I left the country and got away from media speculation or reports.
It's more than anger, it's a visceral, animalistic pain/drive.
Raggamuffin wrote:Guest wrote:What the liberal infested probation service (the warboys releasing probation service) want is for denise fergus to shut up about her dead son so they can continue their little liberal experiment going without anyone drawing attention to it.
I would imagine Denise wouldnt really be very happy with that so carrys on shining the light.
Its easy to be a liberal soft justice exponent when it doesnt effect you. I was probably guilty of that at one time. Then not too far from me a dangerous paedophile was secretively parachuted into a run down estate comunity (thanks probation service!). The residents kicked off like fuck when it became known. I found myself fully understanding there cause. I wont accept adding to any risk to my kids and thats absolute. If thats a problem for paedophiles rehab....fuck em.
Well yes, it does all raise the question of what to do with people convicted of child abuse when they're released. I don't suppose anyone wants them living near them if they have children, but then again, they have to live somewhere.
Raggamuffin wrote:Lady Murasaki wrote:Raggamuffin wrote:
Maybe so, although it's not really what the press is saying, it's what she says to the press. If she does want him dead, she's never said so.
Don't you think she'd still be angry though? I think most of her anger is with the legal system, and that wouldn't change even if he was dead.
Meanwhile, prison inmates are allegedly circulating photos, as are others This is contempt of court, so shouldn't they be prosecuted?
I haven't really followed the case so I'm not sure what's been said. All I can offer is that as a parent, knowing my young child was harmed and killed in that way is not something I would find peace with unless I left the country and got away from media speculation or reports.
It's more than anger, it's a visceral, animalistic pain/drive.
She's a little vague on what she actually wants, but she clearly feels that the original sentence was too lenient, and she's said that she knew that they'd reoffend because they weren't punished properly - ie, they weren't sent to an adult prison.
Lady Murasaki wrote:Raggamuffin wrote:Lady Murasaki wrote:Raggamuffin wrote:
Maybe so, although it's not really what the press is saying, it's what she says to the press. If she does want him dead, she's never said so.
Don't you think she'd still be angry though? I think most of her anger is with the legal system, and that wouldn't change even if he was dead.
Meanwhile, prison inmates are allegedly circulating photos, as are others This is contempt of court, so shouldn't they be prosecuted?
I haven't really followed the case so I'm not sure what's been said. All I can offer is that as a parent, knowing my young child was harmed and killed in that way is not something I would find peace with unless I left the country and got away from media speculation or reports.
It's more than anger, it's a visceral, animalistic pain/drive.
She's a little vague on what she actually wants, but she clearly feels that the original sentence was too lenient, and she's said that she knew that they'd reoffend because they weren't punished properly - ie, they weren't sent to an adult prison.
Maybe she just wants a change in the law then, some sort of new law as a memory or justice for James's death.
A law which means those two would be permanently locked up.
Snookerballs wrote:Raggamuffin wrote:Guest wrote:What the liberal infested probation service (the warboys releasing probation service) want is for denise fergus to shut up about her dead son so they can continue their little liberal experiment going without anyone drawing attention to it.
I would imagine Denise wouldnt really be very happy with that so carrys on shining the light.
Its easy to be a liberal soft justice exponent when it doesnt effect you. I was probably guilty of that at one time. Then not too far from me a dangerous paedophile was secretively parachuted into a run down estate comunity (thanks probation service!). The residents kicked off like fuck when it became known. I found myself fully understanding there cause. I wont accept adding to any risk to my kids and thats absolute. If thats a problem for paedophiles rehab....fuck em.
Well yes, it does all raise the question of what to do with people convicted of child abuse when they're released. I don't suppose anyone wants them living near them if they have children, but then again, they have to live somewhere.
I believe it is policy once a person has been released from Prison for serious child offence`s they are given the facility to be rehoused by the local Authority where the Prison is situated, this gives them anonymity plus they are monitored by the Police.
Raggamuffin wrote:Lady Murasaki wrote:Raggamuffin wrote:Lady Murasaki wrote:
I haven't really followed the case so I'm not sure what's been said. All I can offer is that as a parent, knowing my young child was harmed and killed in that way is not something I would find peace with unless I left the country and got away from media speculation or reports.
It's more than anger, it's a visceral, animalistic pain/drive.
She's a little vague on what she actually wants, but she clearly feels that the original sentence was too lenient, and she's said that she knew that they'd reoffend because they weren't punished properly - ie, they weren't sent to an adult prison.
Maybe she just wants a change in the law then, some sort of new law as a memory or justice for James's death.
A law which means those two would be permanently locked up.
What kind of law?
She has said she doesn't want them locked up for ever, but that they were rewarded rather than punished.
Raggamuffin wrote:Snookerballs wrote:Raggamuffin wrote:
Well yes, it does all raise the question of what to do with people convicted of child abuse when they're released. I don't suppose anyone wants them living near them if they have children, but then again, they have to live somewhere.
I believe it is policy once a person has been released from Prison for serious child offence`s they are given the facility to be rehoused by the local Authority where the Prison is situated, this gives them anonymity plus they are monitored by the Police.
Really? Other people live near prisons though, so there would be the same problem.
Lady Murasaki wrote:Raggamuffin wrote:Lady Murasaki wrote:Raggamuffin wrote:Lady Murasaki wrote:
I haven't really followed the case so I'm not sure what's been said. All I can offer is that as a parent, knowing my young child was harmed and killed in that way is not something I would find peace with unless I left the country and got away from media speculation or reports.
It's more than anger, it's a visceral, animalistic pain/drive.
She's a little vague on what she actually wants, but she clearly feels that the original sentence was too lenient, and she's said that she knew that they'd reoffend because they weren't punished properly - ie, they weren't sent to an adult prison.
Maybe she just wants a change in the law then, some sort of new law as a memory or justice for James's death.
A law which means those two would be permanently locked up.
What kind of law?
She has said she doesn't want them locked up for ever, but that they were rewarded rather than punished.
Ok, I'm just speculating here because I haven't followed the ongoing story but it seems from what you're saying that she wants to make a difference. Her protective side wants to make sure this kind of thing is taken more seriously than it was by the legal system. She may be using the media in order to put on some pressure but how else can she make a difference in the law?
Snookerballs wrote:Raggamuffin wrote:Snookerballs wrote:Raggamuffin wrote:
Well yes, it does all raise the question of what to do with people convicted of child abuse when they're released. I don't suppose anyone wants them living near them if they have children, but then again, they have to live somewhere.
I believe it is policy once a person has been released from Prison for serious child offence`s they are given the facility to be rehoused by the local Authority where the Prison is situated, this gives them anonymity plus they are monitored by the Police.
Really? Other people live near prisons though, so there would be the same problem.
Why should there be a problem ? They are being monitored by the Police
To allow them to return to their home ground is an open invitation for vigilantes, to allow them to disappear into a Community would be a failure on part of the Police.
Raggamuffin wrote:Snookerballs wrote:Raggamuffin wrote:Snookerballs wrote:Raggamuffin wrote:
Well yes, it does all raise the question of what to do with people convicted of child abuse when they're released. I don't suppose anyone wants them living near them if they have children, but then again, they have to live somewhere.
I believe it is policy once a person has been released from Prison for serious child offence`s they are given the facility to be rehoused by the local Authority where the Prison is situated, this gives them anonymity plus they are monitored by the Police.
Really? Other people live near prisons though, so there would be the same problem.
Why should there be a problem ? They are being monitored by the Police
To allow them to return to their home ground is an open invitation for vigilantes, to allow them to disappear into a Community would be a failure on part of the Police.
The people living near the prison would also presumably object to them living near them though. How are they monitored anyway?
Raggamuffin wrote:Lady Murasaki wrote:Raggamuffin wrote:
What kind of law?
She has said she doesn't want them locked up for ever, but that they were rewarded rather than punished.
Ok, I'm just speculating here because I haven't followed the ongoing story but it seems from what you're saying that she wants to make a difference. Her protective side wants to make sure this kind of thing is taken more seriously than it was by the legal system. She may be using the media in order to put on some pressure but how else can she make a difference in the law?
Some kind of minimum sentence perhaps? The judge at the murder trial said they'd be locked up for many years, and then set a minimum of eight years, which doesn't seem a lot to me. I don't know if he could have given them more - I presume he could have. They could have been refused parole after eight years, but it was decided that sending them to an adult prison would damage their rehabilitation. Perhaps she wants a law which says that the victims' family should have a say in the sentencing.
The other issue is whether or not Venables should remain anonymous. That was such a farce really. The original judge lifted reporting restrictions, only for another one to decide they should be anonymous later.
Raggamuffin wrote:Guest wrote:What the liberal infested probation service (the warboys releasing probation service) want is for denise fergus to shut up about her dead son so they can continue their little liberal experiment going without anyone drawing attention to it.
I would imagine Denise wouldnt really be very happy with that so carrys on shining the light.
Its easy to be a liberal soft justice exponent when it doesnt effect you. I was probably guilty of that at one time. Then not too far from me a dangerous paedophile was secretively parachuted into a run down estate comunity (thanks probation service!). The residents kicked off like fuck when it became known. I found myself fully understanding there cause. I wont accept adding to any risk to my kids and thats absolute. If thats a problem for paedophiles rehab....fuck em.
Well yes, it does all raise the question of what to do with people convicted of child abuse when they're released. I don't suppose anyone wants them living near them if they have children, but then again, they have to live somewhere.
Return to News, Politics And Current Affairs
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests