Another case of putting the criminals human rights first.

[steelman79]

Stick to the point at issue. Whether or not I have children is irrelevant to this debate. I've killed to protect strangers, so it's safe to assume I would kill to protect my own flesh and blood.

 

I think its quite relevent actually as if you dont have children you cant have felt the protectiveness which parents do have for them.

[HeadingNorth]

I think its quite relevent actually as if you dont have children you cant have felt the protectiveness which parents do have for them.

 

You think I'd feel more protective of someone, than the level of protectiveness that led me to kill in their defence?

 

How, exactly, would that be possible?

[steelman79]

You think I'd feel more protective of someone, than the level of protectiveness that led me to kill in their defence?

 

How, exactly, would that be possible?

 

So let me get this correct?

Firstly you pull up somebody who says that killing somebody who had harmed their children is correct,then you admit that you would probably kill for your own flesh and blood.and then you admit that you have killed for a stranger?

So why is protecting your children by force so wrong when you later go on to admit you would do it yourself?

[millhouses24]

Having regard to what the offence he was convicted of was, I'm surprised at some of you having such a kneejerk reaction.

 

Is it because it's someone whose opinion on some other things you don't approve of? The opportunity to indulge in a little perverse 'humour' even though the subject is such a contentious one. Although I do remember when the subject of the grooming young girls for sex occured on threads before, they were all deleted, iirc? The discussion about the radio and TV programmes on the subject is what I particularly remember.

 

I personally think it would be appropriate that he and the other pervert should be kept in prison somewhere for life. Why should little girls in another country be put in danger as well?

 

You're actually more generous than me. I personally feel it would be best to have these guys physically punished in the most appropriate way given the offence, and if I knew where they lived and had the right contacts and resources I'd have absolutely no crisis of conscience in taking action. I obviously have secret vigilante tendencies (well, not so secret).

 

If there was a thread about cultural influences on sexism and attitudes towards women with reasonable folk on it, I'd be on there like a shot. Overall our legal system, and our country work fine, but the area of domestic and sexual abuse needs a lot of work in terms of a better conviction rate and a change in public attitudes.

 

What I resent, is the way some people (normally foaming at the mouth scummy Daily Mail readers) try and hijack the reporting of cases like this to promote their own bizarre little agendas. Ask them how many hours they have put in volunteering at women's advice centres or how much of their own cash (or mine - given that most of these BNP scum scrounge off my taxes ) they have put into linked causes and they'll grow strangely silent.

 

It's not genuine concern for the girls involved we're seeing, but a sort of perverse delight that they can use the case to make a point. I'd bet my best pair of high heels that the kind of man who likes to moan about a case like this is (because the perpetrator is an immigrant) is also the kind of man who responds to cases in which a drunk woman in a short skirt is raped with the "well she was asking for it" line.

 

Some kids have been seriously affected, and all some people can do is think "how does this fit into my warped world view and how can I use this as evidence that the country is ruined and the legal system is corrupt and I am right?"

 

I think the original offence was beyond disgusting. And I think people trying to "use" it is disgusting as well.

 

And I must be missing something here, but where has all this "if you are a liberal you don't believe in protecting your own" pile of horse excretement come from? Utter nonsense.

 

Just because a chap is confident enough that he doesn't feel the need to go round beating his chest and going "I'm well hard me" means he would stand by and watch his family get assaulted in front of him? What very warped views some people have

[HeadingNorth]

So let me get this correct?

Firstly you pull up somebody who says that killing somebody who had harmed their children is correct,then you admit that you would probably kill for your own flesh and blood.and then you admit that you have killed for a stranger?

So why is protecting your children by force so wrong when you later go on to admit you would do it yourself?

 

Protecting your children by force is not wrong, and nowhere have I ever said it was, so don't try to make a false argument.

 

Taking vengeance is what I have opposed, and still oppose, and is something I have never done. If you cannot tell the difference between the two, this argument is pointless; is you're deliberately confusing them to try and make me look bad, then you already lost it.

[steelman79]

Protecting your children by force is not wrong, and nowhere have I ever said it was, so don't try to make a false argument.

 

Taking vengeance is what I have opposed, and still oppose, and is something I have never done. If you cannot tell the difference between the two, this argument is pointless; is you're deliberately confusing them to try and make me look bad, then you already lost it.

 

But the thing is lookingnorth a lot of people on here think that protecting children by force IS vengeance.

 

And in no way am i making you look bad.youve just said that you would protect your children by force so maybe that will make you look bad to some people on here but not me and many others i would imagine.

[HeadingNorth]

But the thing is lookingnorth a lot of people on here think that protecting children by force IS venegence.

 

 

Name one. Nobody on this thread had said any such thing, nor do I expect them to.

[steelman79]

Name one. Nobody on this thread had said any such thing, nor do I expect them to.

 

Begins with j ends in x

[HeadingNorth]

Incidentally - and not directed specifically at Steelman - I notice that nobody at all has been able to answer my original question. I take it that, since nobody can think of a person whose human rights have been demoted to second, we are all in agreement that the criminal's human rights have not been put first.

[rubydazzler]

You're actually more generous than me. I personally feel it would be best to have these guys physically punished in the most appropriate way given the offence, and if I knew where they lived and had the right contacts and resources I'd have absolutely no crisis of conscience in taking action. I obviously have secret vigilante tendencies (well, not so secret).

I've cut your post for brevity, but as you probably already know, I'd really prefer to have them legally put down, but I didn't want to take the thread off topic ... I'm not generous at all, I'd just have them killed from the get-go, no nice little jail terms or deportation or whatever, no vigilante or prison attacks either, just a quick, painless death.

 

I agree with you that there is probably a (not so) hidden agenda with some of these threads when they're started. But I still don't like the ethos that allows people to indulge either animosity or levity on the subject. We need to have these things brought to our attention, because it can appear that the legal eagles are working to our detriment when they gainsay Home Office requests for deportation orders. Their human rights? pfffft!