# Out on Licence



## Hobbit (Nov 30, 2019)

As news filtered through that the attacker responsible for the horrific London Bridge attack was out on licence it begs the question why. And on a wider note, should certain sentences be exempt from parole? There has, down the years, been a number of criminals convicted of serious offences released under licence who then go on to reoffend in a similar vein.

Should the chance for parole for criminals convicted of serious assault or murder be stopped?

Its an emotive subject. What are the stats for reoffending? How can things be tightened up? Should Parole Officers be subject to a capability charge for getting things wrong - they are supposed to be the experts?

Although the heart says bang 'em up for life, the head asks is that humane.

Thoughts?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 30, 2019)

Story in the Daily Mail saying one of the people that tackled the terrorist was a convicted murderer on day release. 
Is he a hero? The family of the 21yr old girl he murdered think not.
Very difficult to get your head around yesterdayâ€™s events and maybe some discussions will change once all the facts come out.


----------



## Imurg (Nov 30, 2019)

Is clear that, in some cases, being humane simply doesn't work.
Sometimes life needs to mean life and if there's any doubt then they stay in.
If it means prisons get overcrowded then build more.
On one hand I'm all for giving a second chance but sometimes you just can't as, if the reports are correct, yesterday shows.


----------



## Tashyboy (Nov 30, 2019)

In all Honesty I think Hobbit your post is only scratching the surface. No he should not of been let out. If people are let out for good behaviour having been reabilitated. It should work the other way. If they have not been re educated then the sentance is increased. What is the arguement against that.
But for me the whole of the judicial punishment needs radically overhauling. For me the punishment should be part of the deterrent.
Let me give you an example. Missis T is on a driver awareness course in January. It will cost her Â£90. Two days ago it's on the news that a motorist with no tax, driving licence, mot etc etc. He evaded the police smashed up X number of cars, endangered public life etc. Banned from driving, suspended sentance and fined Â£100. In essence he ain't going down, cannot drive anyway and pays Â£10 more than Missis T. How's that right. I applied and was successful in becoming a magistrate ( never took up role). Anyway some of the changes suggested were instead of having 3 magistrates looking into someone who admitted driving offences. Just have one who sits in a room and hands out the financial sentacing on his own. It was simply to cut costs. How's that right. I get that but there are more important matters than saving a few quid.
Part of applying to become a magistrate is to go into court and observe magistrates sessions. Lordy flippin Lordy. Some of the people who end up In there quite frankly do not give a shit. They think the risk of being caught and the subsequent slap on the risk is worth it. Whether it is motoring offences up to terrorism, our judicial sentacing needs radically changing.


----------



## Backache (Nov 30, 2019)

I think there is a potential problem of parole whatever way you play it. 
There is never in the forseeable future going to be a situation where you say with certainty that someone is or is not going to be violent following release.
If you release no one you are keeping incarcerated a lot of people who are genuinely repentant. The more you release the more certain that some will go on to be violent.
If you have no parole system you lose a lot of the ability to intentivise people to repent and improve their behaviour.
If the sentences are not for whole life you may well have more dissaffected offenders coming out at the end.

I am glad I am not having to work out the optimum strategy but my gut feeling is that sentences for serious violence should either be significantly longer or the consideration for parole come at a later stage in the sentence.


----------



## pauljames87 (Nov 30, 2019)

Whilst I agree our system is rubbish , America have a 3 strike policy and even with that they seem to get a crazy amount of idiots 

But then again more population could be a massive factor


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 30, 2019)

I can accept the principle of offenders being released on licence if they fulfill strict criteria. 

However, I wonder if there are sufficient resources to monitor and control those released. 

There has been a suggestion that the terrorist in this case was known to be involved with extremists since his release. 

Surely that should have been sufficient for him to be returned to custody in view of his original offences?


----------



## Tashyboy (Nov 30, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Story in the Daily Mail saying one of the people that tackled the terrorist was a convicted murderer on day release.
Is he a hero? The family of the 21yr old girl he murdered think not.
Very difficult to get your head around yesterdayâ€™s events and maybe some discussions will change once all the facts come out.
		
Click to expand...

I believe the events of yesterday started at some kind of reabilitation centre for ex cons. Re the alleged murderer the fact he got involved, has he been reabilitated , was he on the course and saw what was happening from the outset? Who knows, but as you say the discussions will change over the course of time. We know more today than yesterday.


----------



## Tashyboy (Nov 30, 2019)

MetalMickie said:



			I can accept the principle of offenders being released on licence if they fulfill strict criteria.

However, I wonder if there are sufficient resources to monitor and control those released.

There has been a suggestion that the terrorist in this case was known to be involved with extremists since his release.

Surely that should have been sufficient for him to be returned to custody in view of his original offences?
		
Click to expand...

Odd thing is as well, he was known to be involved with extremists yet the terror level was reduced last week.


----------



## Slime (Nov 30, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			As news filtered through that the attacker responsible for the horrific London Bridge attack was out on licence it begs the question why. And on a wider note, should certain sentences be exempt from parole? There has, down the years, been a number of criminals convicted of serious offences released under licence who then go on to reoffend in a similar vein.

Should the chance for parole for criminals convicted of serious assault or murder be stopped?

Its an emotive subject. What are the stats for reoffending? How can things be tightened up? Should Parole Officers be subject to a capability charge for getting things wrong - they are supposed to be the experts?

*Although the heart says bang 'em up for life, the head asks is that humane.*

Thoughts?
		
Click to expand...

My heart says bring back the death penalty, but my head says bring back the death penalty.
Two lives would have been saved if that were the case.
Someone on telly, this morning, said they shouldn't release a convicted terrorist unless they'd been de-radicalised!! 
Who is to be the judge of that and is it even possible?
Remove them from the gene-pool, that'd be my solution. Take no chances what-so-ever.
Just think how it could have ended up if he'd had, say, an automatic weapon .................... or even a vehicle!
Why take the chance?


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Nov 30, 2019)

There is too much considering how best to deal with/help/reform the offender.
By the time things get to the court, half the time the officials are hardly thinking of the victim, its all about the offender. 
It's a fair bet by the end of proceedings, most of them couldn't put a name to the victim.
According to reports, we have a case where a terrorist( not a burglar, thief etc) but a terrorist whose Raison d'etre is to terrorise and  kill innocent citizens, is given an indeterminate sentence in 2012, has it changed by a judge to 16 years, knowing, I repeat, *knowing* that the law will require him to be released in 8 years. 
And when he was, he kills two people. 
How many times does it happen, bad people being let out to kill innocents, ?just because we are run by the misguided who think all these villains are some sort of "prodigal son" types. 
Releasing them doesn't mean you are civilised, it means you aren't giving enough consideration to the citizens of your country, a society which has given you a responsible and decisive position , and which you are failing.


----------



## Backache (Nov 30, 2019)

Slime said:



			My heart says bring back the death penalty, but my head says bring back the death penalty.
Two lives would have been saved if that were the case.
Someone on telly, this morning, said they shouldn't release a convicted terrorist unless they'd been de-radicalised!! 
Who is to be the judge of that and is it even possible?
Remove them from the gene-pool, that'd be my solution. Take no chances what-so-ever.
Just think how it could have ended up if he'd had, say, an automatic weapon .................... or even a vehicle!
Why take the chance?
		
Click to expand...

He hadn't actually commited an act of terror, he had planned one.
Don't think there's to many regimes would give the death penalty for that nowadays.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 30, 2019)

You are never going to totally remove all crime 

Every time this happens always get the call for the death penalty etc which is bore out of blood thirsty revenge because the death penalty isnâ€™t a deterrent and this Guy was looking to plan an attack when he was arrested and killing someone for that ?!

And the guy who helped yesterday was a convicted killer it seems - so if the death penalty was around he wouldnâ€™t have been there to help save lives - he was what can happen when people can rehabilitate themselves 

Terrorism etc has been around for centuries in some form and Itâ€™s going to continue Same with all crimes - we have to put trust into our justice system , itâ€™s a big part of us being a civilised society 

There is prob the potential to add in a level in the prison - solitary confinement for life etc


----------



## pauljames87 (Nov 30, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			You are never going to totally remove all crime 

Every time this happens always get the call for the death penalty etc which is bore out of blood thirsty revenge because the death penalty isnâ€™t a deterrent and this Guy was looking to plan an attack when he was arrested and killing someone for that ?!

And the guy who helped yesterday was a convicted killer it seems - so if the death penalty was around he wouldnâ€™t have been there to help save lives - he was what can happen when people can rehabilitate themselves 

Terrorism etc has been around for centuries in some form and Itâ€™s going to continue Same with all crimes - we have to put trust into our justice system , itâ€™s a big part of us being a civilised society 

There is prob the potential to add in a level in the prison - solitary confinement for life etc
		
Click to expand...

My best mates dad was convicted of fraud about 12 years ago 

I used to take her to see him. He spoke about how Islam was growing inside , gangs were forcing people to convert for protection (I should point out this isn't a dig at the peaceful Islam real people worship or follow . Just the scummy king) he could handle himself so didn't get involved 

Someone else I work with used to be a prison officer and he said similar that Islam converts were on the rise 

Under funding of prisons , breeding grounds for radialisation


----------



## Slime (Nov 30, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			You are never going to totally remove all crime

Every time this happens always get the call for the *death penalty etc which is bore out of blood thirsty revenge* because the death penalty isnâ€™t a deterrent and this Guy was looking to plan an attack when he was arrested and killing someone for that ?!

And the guy who helped yesterday was a convicted killer it seems - *so if the death penalty was around he wouldnâ€™t have been there to help save lives *- he was what can happen when people can rehabilitate themselves

Terrorism etc has been around for centuries in some form and Itâ€™s going to continue Same with all crimes - we have to put trust into our justice system , itâ€™s a big part of us being a civilised society

There is prob the potential to add in a level in the prison - solitary confinement for life etc
		
Click to expand...


You are just wrong, it's born out of the fact that these people would not be able to kill other innocent people and ruin dozens of lives!!

If the death penalty had been around, he wouldn't have needed to save lives!!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 30, 2019)

Slime said:



			You are just wrong, it's born out of the fact that these people would not be able to kill other innocent people and ruin dozens of lives!!

If the death penalty had been around, he wouldn't have needed to save lives!!

Click to expand...

This person hadnâ€™t killed anyone until yesterday so tell me how the death penalty would have stopped him killing innocent lives ?


----------



## Blue in Munich (Nov 30, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			This person hadnâ€™t killed anyone until yesterday so tell me how the death penalty would have stopped him killing innocent lives ?
		
Click to expand...

By making it the penalty for belonging to a terrorist organisation or planning a terrorist attack?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 30, 2019)

Blue in Munich said:



			By making it the penalty for belonging to a terrorist organisation or planning a terrorist attack?
		
Click to expand...

Wow. 

I wonder the response would be


----------



## Slime (Nov 30, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			This person hadnâ€™t killed anyone until yesterday so tell me how the death penalty would have stopped him killing innocent lives ?
		
Click to expand...

He was a convicted terrorist who'd planned to kill in a terrorist attack, that would have attracted the death penalty if the death penalty was available at the time.
Sadly, it wasn't.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 30, 2019)

Slime said:



			He was a convicted terrorist who'd planned to kill in a terrorist attack, *that would have attracted the death penalty if the death penalty was available at the time.*
Sadly, it wasn't.
		
Click to expand...

What other countries have that rule in place ? 

Even when we had the death penalty I believe it was used when people had committed murder 

Nelson Mandela was a convicted terrorist - should he have been given the death penalty as well


----------



## Slime (Nov 30, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			What other countries have that rule in place ?

Even when we had the death penalty I believe it was used when people had committed murder

Nelson Mandela was a convicted terrorist - should he have been given the death penalty as well
		
Click to expand...

I don't care what other countries do, that's irrelevant.
I wouldn't have the death penalty just for murders.
Nelson Mandela wasn't tried or convicted over here, so that's also irrelevant.


----------



## Papas1982 (Nov 30, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			What other countries have that rule in place ? 

Even when we had the death penalty I believe it was used when people had committed murder 

Nelson Mandela was a convicted terrorist - should he have been given the death penalty as well
		
Click to expand...

Had the same convo last night. In hindsight we can all say Mandelas cause was a just one. Since his release itâ€™s not like his outlook changed, his methods maybe, but his POV was accepted as right. 

In years to come, I donâ€™t see there being a justification for the current terrorist attacks. 

Imo if you commit or plan to, then you should be taken out of civilisation. Whether thatâ€™s death or simply solitary until you die is another convo, but any person convicted of an act of terror isnâ€™t gonna rehabilitate.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 30, 2019)

Slime said:



			I don't care what other countries do, that's irrelevant.
I wouldn't have the death penalty just for murders.
Nelson Mandela wasn't tried or convicted over here, so that's also irrelevant.
		
Click to expand...

Iâ€™m so glad that someone like you has zero to do with our judiciary department -

Thankfully we as a civilised nation moved past the barbaric punishment of killing someone

If you want to live in a society that has the capital punishment then these some of the countries to move too

Islamic Nations
China
USA
Indonesia
Pakistan
Nigeria

But be quick as more and more are removing the barbaric punishment.



Papas1982 said:



			Had the same convo last night. In hindsight we can all say Mandelas cause was a just one. Since his release itâ€™s not like his outlook changed, his methods maybe, but his POV was accepted as right.

In years to come, I donâ€™t see there being a justification for the current terrorist attacks.

Imo if you commit or plan to, then you should be taken out of civilisation. Whether thatâ€™s death or simply solitary until you die is another convo, but any person convicted of an act of terror isnâ€™t gonna rehabilitate.
		
Click to expand...

As they say one person terrorist is the next persons freedom fighter - for centuries the west have tried to dominate the Middle East countries - firstly to liberate them into Christianity all those centuries ago and then recently because of oil - the US along with ourselves have got involved with their politics because of the way they acted in their countries ( ironically for some the way they killed people as a punishment for example ) and itâ€™s no surprise that they fight back and act out their idea of revenge. I see it getting worse and this guy will now be seen as a hero in their eyes - they should be locked away for life , solitary confinement with pure basics


----------



## Slime (Nov 30, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



*Iâ€™m so glad that someone like you has zero to do with our judiciary department -*

Thankfully we as a civilised nation moved past the barbaric punishment of killing someone

*If you want to live in a society that has the capital punishment then these some of the countries to move too*

*Islamic Nations
China
USA
Indonesia
Pakistan
Nigeria*

But be quick as more and more are removing the barbaric punishment.



As they say one person terrorist is the next persons freedom fighter - for centuries the west have tried to dominate the Middle East countries - firstly to liberate them into Christianity all those centuries ago and then recently because of oil - the US along with ourselves have got involved with their politics because of the way they acted in their countries ( ironically for some the way they killed people as a punishment for example ) and itâ€™s no surprise that they fight back and act out their idea of revenge. I see it getting worse and this guy will now be seen as a hero in their eyes - they should be locked away for life , solitary confinement with pure basics
		
Click to expand...

Why am I not surprised at this kind of petty reply from you.
I can't see any justification for protecting terrorists, I'd rather protect their intended targets.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Nov 30, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Wow. 

I wonder the response would be
		
Click to expand...

A round of applause for whichever politician found the balls to do it from me. 

Not quite sure what your problem is with taking out people whoâ€™d take out you, your wife or your daughter in a heartbeat?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 30, 2019)

Slime said:



			Why am I not surprised at this kind of petty reply from you.
I can't see any justification for protecting terrorists, I'd rather protect their intended targets.
		
Click to expand...

Why is it petty ?

You want to be part of a society that has the death penalty as part of his judiciary system , it was removed from our society because it wasnâ€™t a deterrent and it was decided it wasnâ€™t part of a civilised society - itâ€™s not ever going to be re introduced so if you want to be part of a society like that then there are nations around the world that still have it.



Blue in Munich said:



			A round of applause for whichever politician found the balls to do it from me.

Not quite sure what your problem is with taking out people whoâ€™d take out you, your wife or your daughter in a heartbeat?
		
Click to expand...

And what would be the repercussions from the Islamic society for example - they are already committing these acts because of involvement in their lives - and then what happens when we start to make martyrs of them. Bringing my wife and daughter into it is low - really low , thought better.


----------



## Slime (Nov 30, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Why is it petty ?

You want to be part of a society that has the death penalty as part of his judiciary system , *it was removed from our society because it wasnâ€™t a deterrent *and it was decided it wasnâ€™t part of a civilised society - itâ€™s not ever going to be re introduced so if you want to be part of a society like that then there are nations around the world that still have it.
		
Click to expand...

It may not be a deterrent, but it stops the bastards from re-offending!


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 30, 2019)

Slime said:



			It may not be a deterrent, but it stops the bastards from re-offending!
		
Click to expand...

Why not just keep them locked up for life - that stops them reoffending? Why kill them?


----------



## Slime (Nov 30, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			Why not just keep them locked up for life - that stops them reoffending? Why kill them?
		
Click to expand...

It'd stop them trying to radicalise other prisoners which, apparently, is already becoming an issue.
Just take that danger away.


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 30, 2019)

Slime said:



			It'd stop them trying to radicalise other prisoners which, apparently, is already becoming an issue.
Just take that danger away.
		
Click to expand...

Solitary?


----------



## drdel (Nov 30, 2019)

Regretfully a senior MP has now stated there should not be a 'shoot-to-kill' policy. He needs to realise shooting kills it is a not Holywood stunt; firing a gun at someone is very likely to result in death. In circumstances like yesterday it was necessary to remove the threat of a potential bomb being triggered without delay; the officers need support not castigation.


----------



## Wolf (Nov 30, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Why is it petty ?

You want to be part of a society that has the death penalty as part of his judiciary system , it was removed from our society because it wasnâ€™t a deterrent and it was decided it wasnâ€™t part of a civilised society - itâ€™s not ever going to be re introduced so if you want to be part of a society like that then there are nations around the world that still have it.



*And what would be the repercussions from the Islamic society for example - they are already committing these acts because of involvement in their lives - and then what happens when we start to make martyrs of them.* Bringing my wife and daughter into it is low - really low , thought better.
		
Click to expand...

That point right there is the crux of it and LP is on the money with that point, by giving out the death penalty to these criminals you give fuel to the rise of further Jihadist militants thus fueling their passion and hatred further of the Western world thus more attacks happen meaning more loss of innocent lives here and in other Western countries. By all means lock these people up for life in confinement away from the ability to radicalised others, even let the press leak that these people have been compliant with our security services which will shame them in their culture.

By giving them the death penalty you don't prevent further radicalisation you actually give them more fuel to do it in order to avenge the deaths of their brothers, because in the real world these people don't see it as us carrying out justice they see it as the infidel preventing the Jihadist from carrying out the role they were anointed to by Allah. This alone is the reason that the extremist ultimately feel they will inevitably win this "war" because death is the ultimate  victory and with each death the west brings upon them they can secure more recruits for their cause...


----------



## Papas1982 (Nov 30, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			As they say one person terrorist is the next persons freedom fighter - for centuries the west have tried to dominate the Middle East countries - firstly to liberate them into Christianity all those centuries ago and then recently because of oil - the US along with ourselves have got involved with their politics because of the way they acted in their countries ( ironically for some the way they killed people as a punishment for example ) and itâ€™s no surprise that they fight back and act out their idea of revenge. I see it getting worse and this guy will now be seen as a hero in their eyes - they should be locked away for life , solitary confinement with pure basics
		
Click to expand...

If we're gonna go back to as far as the crusades then we may as well just accept its a them and us world. 

I accept that wars will have played a part in some beliefs. But if we accept that as an excuse for their actions then quite simply any terrorist act should be responded to with the same force. Its not ideal, buta soft touch won't work.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Nov 30, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And what would be the repercussions from the Islamic society for example - they are already committing these acts because of involvement in their lives - and then what happens when we start to make martyrs of them. Bringing my wife and daughter into it is low - really low , thought better.
		
Click to expand...

Would there be repercussions? Perhaps if we stood up to them,  fought fire with fire, there wouldnâ€™t be an issue; theyâ€™d be less inclined to do it. 

And the ones that brought your wife and daughter into it are the terrorists who attack innocent civilians; Iâ€™m just pointing out the fact that they are gutless cowards who love soft targets. Iâ€™m sorry if youâ€™re uncomfortable with that fact, but it is a fact, so please spare me the moral reprimand.


----------



## Imurg (Nov 30, 2019)

drdel said:



			Regretfully a senior MP has now stated there should not be a 'shoot-to-kill' policy. He needs to realise shooting kills it is a not Holywood stunt; firing a gun at someone is very likely to result in death. In circumstances like yesterday it was necessary to remove the threat of a potential bomb being triggered without delay; the officers need support not castigation.
		
Click to expand...

Someone asked on Twitter yesterday of the guy was dead or injured
The reply was that a double tap from a MP5 doesn't result in injury.....
A situation like yesterday you simply can't shoot to not kill....


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 30, 2019)

drdel said:



			Regretfully a senior MP has now stated there should not be a 'shoot-to-kill' policy. He needs to realise shooting kills it is a not Holywood stunt; firing a gun at someone is very likely to result in death. In circumstances like yesterday it was necessary to remove the threat of a potential bomb being triggered without delay; the officers need support not castigation.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Slime (Nov 30, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			Solitary?
		
Click to expand...

How many would then end up in solitary for up to 60 or 70 years?
a) People moan that prisons are over crowded, putting them in solitary just wouldn't help.
b) I'd sooner the money was spent on the NHS rather than keeping these people safe and well for most of a lifetime.

I'd sooner they were executed in a controlled environment, rather than on our streets.


----------



## Backache (Nov 30, 2019)

Papas1982 said:



			If we're gonna go back to as far as the crusades then we may as well just accept its a them and us world.

I accept that wars will have played a part in some beliefs. But if we accept that as an excuse for their actions then quite simply any terrorist act should be responded to with the same force. Its not ideal, buta soft touch won't work.
		
Click to expand...

I think it depends by what you mean by a soft touch and work.
I would certainly agree that letting people convicted of planning serious terrorist offences early is pretty damn stupid. However that doesn't mean that the death penalty is an effective deterrent or solution. It hasn't demonstrated that before. 
My general impression is that the overall action that is happening at the moment has worked at least partially  and radicalisation has decreased.


----------



## Jamesbrown (Nov 30, 2019)

Death penalty would be effective if it was done right. Itâ€™s no good offering a meal and an early bedtime is it? 
Hanging, forced drowning would be more suitable. And cheaper. 
 Even if your a criminal sympathiser you could at least disable them and remove some limbs, genitalia or sight if that makes you sleep better at night that criminals still have a life? 

Terrorists, rapists, murderers all must go.


----------



## Papas1982 (Nov 30, 2019)

Backache said:



			I think it depends by what you mean by a soft touch and work.
I would certainly agree that letting people convicted of planning serious terrorist offences early is pretty damn stupid. However that doesn't mean that the death penalty is an effective deterrent or solution. It hasn't demonstrated that before.
My general impression is that the overall action that is happening at the moment has worked at least partially  and radicalisation has decreased.
		
Click to expand...

I wasn't advocating the death penalty. I'm not opposed to it tbh. But I simply meant life inprisonment for any involvement at all.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 30, 2019)

Papas1982 said:



			If we're gonna go back to as far as the crusades then we may as well just accept its a them and us world.
		
Click to expand...

A â€œthem and usâ€ world was created a long time ago and thatâ€™s not going to change in a long time 




			I accept that wars will have played a part in some beliefs. But if we accept that as an excuse for their actions then quite simply any terrorist act should be responded to with the same force. Its not ideal, buta soft touch won't work.
		
Click to expand...

No one said anything was an â€œexcuseâ€ - and whatâ€™s this soft touch you are talking about ? We as a nation went to war because of a terrorist act , we killed thousands of them - you think thatâ€™s a soft touch ?! 


Blue in Munich said:



			Would there be repercussions? Perhaps if we stood up to them,  fought fire with fire, there wouldnâ€™t be an issue; theyâ€™d be less inclined to do it.
		
Click to expand...

We went to war into their country and fought fire with fire - how did that work out ? How many others lost their lives because we went fire to fire - and people I worked with lost their lives because we went fire to fire 




			And the ones that brought your wife and daughter into it are the terrorists who attack innocent civilians; Iâ€™m just pointing out the fact that they are gutless cowards who love soft targets. Iâ€™m sorry if youâ€™re uncomfortable with that fact, but it is a fact, so please spare me the moral reprimand.
		
Click to expand...

Really disappointing


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Nov 30, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Why is it petty ?

You want to be part of a society that has the death penalty as part of his judiciary system , it was removed from our socie*ty because it wasnâ€™t a deterrent and it was decided it wasnâ€™t part of a civilised society* - itâ€™s not ever going to be re introduced so if you want to be part of a society like that then there are nations around the world that still have it.



And what would be the repercussions from the Islamic society for example - they are already committing these acts because of involvement in their lives - and then what happens when we start to make martyrs of them. Bringing my wife and daughter into it is low - really low , thought better.
		
Click to expand...

Re the bold. What a load of rubbish. Are you seriously saying that it wasn't a deterrent , meaning the murder rate hasn't increased.? Do you not watch the news or read newspapers from which it is clear that murders are now rife.
Feral youths are routinely stabbing people in London and elsewhere at a rate of knots.
Your views are unbelievably naive, and that is putting it politely. I cannot imagine anyone ,who cares more for society's protection than for way out trendy theories about reforming scum, thinking the way you do. The way you think just flabbergasts me. 
And no, it isn't low to put it to you straight so that you think what you may want done , if the threat against safety became personal. It's a pertinent point that you choose to ignore
A fair man would want the same protections for all innocent citizens that he would want for his own family. And to focus your thinking on that is quite proper.


----------



## Backache (Nov 30, 2019)

Papas1982 said:



			I wasn't advocating the death penalty. I'm not opposed to it tbh. But I simply meant life inprisonment for any involvement at all.
		
Click to expand...

There are always degrees of involvement including unwitting involvement.
Do you put someone in gaol who has once clicked on a link advocating jihad?
Or as that policewoman the other day with porn received but not open a link and fail to report it?
Or someone whose house is being used but they are unaware of it, or you think they are unaware of it but are not sure , or they thought it was a koran study group?


----------



## Papas1982 (Nov 30, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			A â€œthem and usâ€ world was created a long time ago and thatâ€™s not going to change in a long time
		
Click to expand...

I don't see too many people of the western world going on killing sprees over there. 


Liverpoolphil said:



			No one said anything was an â€œexcuseâ€ - and whatâ€™s this soft touch you are talking about ? We as a nation went to war because of a terrorist act , we killed thousands of them - you think thatâ€™s a soft touch ?!
		
Click to expand...

I mean it the treatment to anyone involved at all. Carry out or aid any terrorist knowingly and you're inside for ever. I'm not talking the reactions to events. More the attempts to prevent repeats if yesterday where people are released.


----------



## Slime (Nov 30, 2019)

Jamesbrown said:



			Death penalty would be effective if it was done right. Itâ€™s no good offering a meal and an early bedtime is it?
Hanging, forced drowning would be more suitable. And cheaper.
Even if your a criminal sympathiser you could at least disable them and remove some limbs, genitalia or sight if that makes you sleep better at night that criminals still have a life?

*Terrorists, rapists, murderers all must go.*

Click to expand...

You should also add kiddy fiddlers to your list.


----------



## Papas1982 (Nov 30, 2019)

Backache said:



			There are always degrees of involvement including unwitting involvement.
Do you put someone in gaol who has once clicked on a link advocating jihad?
Or as that policewoman the other day with porn received but not open a link and fail to report it?
Or someone whose house is being used but they are unaware of it, or you think they are unaware of it but are not sure , or they thought it was a koran study group?
		
Click to expand...

Didnt think I needed to clarify wiling involvement. Presumed that woukd be obvious been as the thread was regarding the release of convicted people.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 30, 2019)

Swinglowandslow said:



			Re the bold. What a load of rubbish. Are you seriously saying that it wasn't a deterrent , meaning the murder rate hasn't increased.? Do you not watch the news or read newspapers from which it is clear that murders are now rife.
		
Click to expand...

If itâ€™s such a deterrent why do the crimes still continue to happen in countries where the death penalty exists 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....at-executions-deter-criminals/?outputType=amp

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/thec...th-penalty-is-a-deterrent-against-crime-43227

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/s...e-the-death-penalty-is-an-effective-deterrent

Also why were there multiple murders going on when we had the death penalty 




			Feral youths are routinely stabbing people in London and elsewhere at a rate of knots.
Your views are unbelievably naive, and that is putting it politely. I cannot imagine anyone ,who cares more for society's protection than for way out trendy theories about reforming scum, thinking the way you do. The way you think just flabbergasts me.
		
Click to expand...

Why am I naive because I think that the death penalty is not the way to go ?



			And no, it isn't low to put it to you straight so that you think what you may want done , if the threat against safety became personal. It's a pertinent point that you choose to ignore
A fair man would want the same protections for all innocent citizens that he would want for his own family. And to focus your thinking on that is quite proper.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry but what point am I ignoring ?


----------



## Jamesbrown (Nov 30, 2019)

Slime said:



			You should also add kiddy fiddlers to your list.
		
Click to expand...

Them, animal abusers and people who park at within 30 ft of junctions.


----------



## Wolf (Nov 30, 2019)

Swinglowandslow said:



			Re the bold. What a load of rubbish. Are you seriously saying that it wasn't a deterrent , meaning the murder rate hasn't increased.? Do you not watch the news or read newspapers from which it is clear that murders are now rife.
Feral youths are routinely stabbing people in London and elsewhere at a rate of knots.
Your views are unbelievably naive, and that is putting it politely. I cannot imagine anyone ,who cares more for society's protection than for way out trendy theories about reforming scum, thinking the way you do. The way you think just flabbergasts me.
And no, it isn't low to put it to you straight so that you think what you may want done , if the threat against safety became personal. It's a pertinent point that you choose to ignore
A fair man would want the same protections for all innocent citizens that he would want for his own family. And to focus your thinking on that is quite proper.
		
Click to expand...

The death penalty isn't a deterant to a jihadist its a victory and way of showing their disciples and followers that the west is oppressing them so actually is their best recruitment tool.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Nov 30, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			Why not just keep them locked up for life - that stops them reoffending? Why kill them?
		
Click to expand...

The irony here is that it is pressure on the numbers in our overcrowded jails that is to blame for the early release on licence of prisoners.

These people bypass the parole board, it has the affect of reducing the prison population, but often lets people back out into society who are not ready or safe.

It is a prime example of massive underinvestment by successive governments over the past 50 years.

We need more prisons, more and better paid staff and the balls not to release people early, 
people are given indeterminate sentences for a reason, the notion that itâ€™s unfair on the poor darlings is tough. 
However, the blame for early release of this particular perp is the judiciary, not the politicians. 
However, now this has come to light, I would expect the first act of a new government would be to legislate to stop indeterminate sentences being turned into fixed term ones.


----------



## robinthehood (Nov 30, 2019)

Slime said:



			I don't care what other countries do, that's irrelevant.
I wouldn't have the death penalty just for murders.
Nelson Mandela wasn't tried or convicted over here, so that's also irrelevant.
		
Click to expand...

You'd sentence john letts and  Sally lane to death too ?


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 30, 2019)

Normal prisons are'nt punishment enough for some people. Maybe we need prisons on bleak outposts like South Georgia where these people serve hard labour for life. Wind a resisted handle in your cell a thousand times a day or get half rations, forget the televisions or table tennis.
If anyone disagrees with this type of punishment then what do they suggest? Please don't say sit down with them and have a chat over a cup of tea.


----------



## Slime (Nov 30, 2019)

robinthehood said:



			You'd sentence john letts and  Sally lane to death too ?
		
Click to expand...

Why, who have they killed or are planning to kill?
Every case on it's merits.

Oof.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 30, 2019)

I have no issue with the perpetrators of crimes such as this latest attack being killed by the authorities whilst carrying out their  atrocities to prevent the situation escalating. 

I also have no issue with stronger prison sentences following conviction. 

However,  the death penalty is a different matter for me as I consider it counter productive in many terrorism cases, certainly unlikely to serve as a deterrent and, finally, impossible to rectify in cases of miscarriage of justice. 

Imagine if capital punishment had been applied to the Birmingham Six.


----------



## Slime (Nov 30, 2019)

MetalMickie said:



			I have no issue with the perpetrators of crimes such as this latest attack being killed by the authorities whilst carrying out their  atrocities to prevent the situation escalating.

I also have no issue with stronger prison sentences following conviction.

However,  the death penalty is a different matter for me as I consider it counter productive in many terrorism cases, certainly unlikely to serve as a deterrent and, finally, impossible to rectify in cases of miscarriage of justice.

Imagine if capital punishment had been applied to the Birmingham Six.
		
Click to expand...

But we are talking about 2019, not 1975.
Convictions are far more secure these days, but as I said earlier, judge each case on it's own merits.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 30, 2019)

Slime said:



			But we are talking about 2019, not 1975.
Convictions are far more secure these days, but as I said earlier, judge each case on it's own merits.
		
Click to expand...

Interested to know on what basis you think convictions are any more secure these days. 

The Criminal Cases Review Board remains pretty busy and one such mistake is, in my eyes, too many.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 30, 2019)

Slime said:



			But we are talking about 2019, not 1975.
Convictions are far more secure these days, but as I said earlier, judge each case on it's own merits.
		
Click to expand...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...-jail-miscarriages-of-justice-in-Britain.html

A few people there would be dead if you had your way 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....scarriage-of-justice-victims-uk-supreme-court


All it takes is one innocent person to be given the death penalty - but then thatâ€™s been done before as well 

Quite a lot of people still get wrongly convicted


----------



## robinthehood (Nov 30, 2019)

Slime said:



			Why, who have they killed or are planning to kill?
Every case on it's merits.

Oof.
		
Click to expand...

You're willing to kill people based on what they may do. They have a conviction for funding a terrorist.


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 30, 2019)

robinthehood said:



			You're willing to kill people based on what they may do. They have a conviction for funding a terrorist.
		
Click to expand...

Come on be realistic. Maybe deportation to Swindon.


----------



## Slime (Nov 30, 2019)

robinthehood said:



			You're willing to kill people based on what they may do. They have a conviction for funding a terrorist.
		
Click to expand...

Is that the best you can come up with?


----------



## Slime (Nov 30, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...-jail-miscarriages-of-justice-in-Britain.html

*A few people there would be dead if you had your way*

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....scarriage-of-justice-victims-uk-supreme-court


All it takes is one innocent person to be given the death penalty - but then thatâ€™s been done before as well

Quite a lot of people still get wrongly convicted
		
Click to expand...

Read my posts, then come back with a counter argument.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 30, 2019)

Slime said:



			Read my posts, then come back with a counter argument.
		
Click to expand...

I have read your posts 

There have been multiple people convicted of murder , or convicted of child sex abuse etc etc - crimes which you it appears would be worthy of the death penalty only to to found out to be innocent years later 

So whatâ€™s your answer to the potential that an innocent person could end up being given the death penalty. If itâ€™s a prison sentence then they are set free and compensated - canâ€™t do that if you have them hanged


----------



## Slime (Nov 30, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



*I have read your posts*

There have been multiple people convicted of murder , or convicted of child sex abuse etc etc - crimes which you it appears would be worthy of the death penalty only to to found out to be innocent years later

So *whatâ€™s your answer to the potential that an innocent person could end up being given the death penalty.* If itâ€™s a prison sentence then they are set free and compensated - canâ€™t do that if you have them hanged
		
Click to expand...


As I've already said, on more than one occasion, each case should be judged on it's own merits.


----------



## TheDiablo (Nov 30, 2019)

Slime said:



			As I've already said, on more than one occasion, each case should be judged on it's own merits.
		
Click to expand...

Whose merits get used in this awful reverse Black Mirror episode? Cos if its your barbaric views I'm running!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 30, 2019)

Slime said:



			As I've already said, on more than one occasion, each case should be judged on it's own merits.
		
Click to expand...

Each case is already judged on its own merits as it is - you have drawn your line in regards the death penalty many times and every time when faced with the fact that there will always be convictions over turned you have no answer to the fact there would be the potential for an innocent man to be sentenced to death


----------



## Slime (Nov 30, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Each case is already judged on its own merits as it is - you have drawn your line in regards the death penalty many times and every time when faced with the fact that there will always be convictions over turned you have no answer to the fact there would be the potential for an innocent man to be sentenced to death
		
Click to expand...

You just don't or won't even try to get it.

For example : The murder of Lee Rigby.
Are they guilty.   Yes.
Any doubts.        No.
So, where's the potential for an innocent person to be sentenced to death?

One case taken on it's own merits. Not a difficult concept.
As Barry Scott would say .............................. Bang!  And the dirt is gone.


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 30, 2019)

Slime said:



			You just don't or won't even try to get it.

For example : The murder of Lee Rigby.
Are they guilty.   Yes.
Any doubts.        No.
So, where's the potential for an innocent person to be sentenced to death?

One case taken on it's own merits. Not a difficult concept.
As Barry Scott would say .............................. Bang!  And the dirt is gone.
		
Click to expand...

I agree there are cases where there can be absolutely no doubt on the guilt of the perpetrator.


----------



## Pin-seeker (Nov 30, 2019)

Slime said:



			You just don't or won't even try to get it.

For example : The murder of Lee Rigby.
Are they guilty.   Yes.
Any doubts.        No.
So, where's the potential for an innocent person to be sentenced to death?

One case taken on it's own merits. Not a difficult concept.
As Barry Scott would say .............................. Bang!  And the dirt is gone.
		
Click to expand...




Liverpoolphil said:



			Each case is already judged on its own merits as it is - you have drawn your line in regards the death penalty many times and every time when faced with the fact that there will always be convictions over turned you have no answer to the fact there would be the potential for an innocent man to be sentenced to death
		
Click to expand...

So you donâ€™t think there are any cases that 100%?
Slime as given you a perfect example ðŸ¤·â€â™‚ï¸.


----------



## gmc40 (Nov 30, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			I agree there are cases where there can be absolutely no doubt on the guilt of the perpetrator.
		
Click to expand...

Isnâ€™t that the measure by which everyone is found guilty? I.e â€œbeyond all reasonable doubtâ€? Or using slimes method;

Deffo guilty â€œwe seen him do itâ€ = hang him
Deffo guilty â€œwe didnâ€™t see him do it but the evidence says he deffo did itâ€ = hang him
Deffo guilty â€œwe didnâ€™t see him do it but the evidence shows no other logical explanationâ€ I.e â€˜beyond reasonable doubtâ€™ = send him to prison for life but donâ€™t hang him just in case it turns out he didnâ€™t do it

I can imagine the appeals system will be a lot busier.

Genius!


----------



## Slime (Dec 1, 2019)

gmc40 said:



			Isnâ€™t that the measure by which everyone is found guilty? I.e â€œbeyond all reasonable doubtâ€? *Or using slimes method;*

*Deffo guilty â€œwe seen him do itâ€ = hang him
Deffo guilty â€œwe didnâ€™t see him do it but the evidence says he deffo did itâ€ = hang him
Deffo guilty â€œwe didnâ€™t see him do it but the evidence shows no other logical explanationâ€ I.e â€˜beyond reasonable doubtâ€™ = send him to prison for life but donâ€™t hang him just in case it turns out he didnâ€™t do it*

I can imagine the appeals system will be a lot busier.

Genius!
		
Click to expand...

Really?
I mean, is that how you honestly read it?


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 1, 2019)

gmc40 said:



			Isnâ€™t that the measure by which everyone is found guilty? I.e â€œbeyond all reasonable doubtâ€? Or using slimes method;

Deffo guilty â€œwe seen him do itâ€ = hang him
Deffo guilty â€œwe didnâ€™t see him do it but the evidence says he deffo did itâ€ = hang him
Deffo guilty â€œwe didnâ€™t see him do it but the evidence shows no other logical explanationâ€ I.e â€˜beyond reasonable doubtâ€™ = send him to prison for life but donâ€™t hang him just in case it turns out he didnâ€™t do it

I can imagine the appeals system will be a lot busier.

Genius!
		
Click to expand...

Read what I said and digest it before replying.  There are cases of terrorist crime where the guilt is beyond question.  There are other cases where it is more subjective.  Thankfully we have been given heads between our shoulders that allow us to differentiate between them.


----------



## gmc40 (Dec 1, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			Read what I said and digest it before replying.  There are cases of terrorist crime where the guilt is beyond question.  There are other cases where it is more subjective.  Thankfully we have been given heads between our shoulders that allow us to differentiate between them.
		
Click to expand...

My post covers both of the above. See scenarios 1 and 3


----------



## gmc40 (Dec 1, 2019)

Slime said:



			Really?
I mean, is that how you honestly read it? 

Click to expand...

Pretty much. The suggestion just doesnâ€™t work for a number of reasons;

1. It isnâ€™t a deterrent - look at the USA as an example
2. As previously stated, in terrorism cases youâ€™d be turning them into a martyr
3. Thereâ€™s always a risk of miscarriage of justice resulting in the wrong person being killed. One is too many IMO
4. For those who arenâ€™t given the death penalty it throws doubt on their convictions. If the establishment arenâ€™t convinced the alleged perpetrator has met the criteria for the death penalty then how can the conviction be safe? Appeal after appeal after appeal will follow.
5. It isnâ€™t cheaper - appeals (of which there are many) cost money
6. Whilst all these appeals are going on they are still in the prison system, it isnâ€™t over and done with in a few weeks. Not researched it but from what Iâ€™ve read in the past people can be on death row in the states for 20+ years.

Years of underfunding by the Tories havenâ€™t helped. The penal and prison systems are a mess and severely underfunded.

â€œThe party of law and orderâ€. Yeah okay


----------



## Fish (Dec 1, 2019)

We just need more end results like on London bridge, if a terrorist is in full view of having already committed a life threatening crime (ala Lee Rigby) or is about to, then shoot them, simples.


----------



## Slime (Dec 1, 2019)

gmc40 said:



			Pretty much. The suggestion just doesnâ€™t work for a number of reasons;

1. It isnâ€™t a deterrent - look at the USA as an example
2. As previously stated, in terrorism cases youâ€™d be turning them into a martyr
*3. Thereâ€™s always a risk of miscarriage of justice resulting in the wrong person being killed. One is too many IMO*
4. For those who arenâ€™t given the death penalty it throws doubt on their convictions. If the establishment arenâ€™t convinced the alleged perpetrator has met the criteria for the death penalty then how can the conviction be safe? Appeal after appeal after appeal will follow.
5. It isnâ€™t cheaper - appeals (of which there are many) cost money
6. Whilst all these appeals are going on they are still in the prison system, it isnâ€™t over and done with in a few weeks. Not researched it but from what Iâ€™ve read in the past people can be on death row in the states for 20+ years.

Years of underfunding by the Tories havenâ€™t helped. The penal and prison systems are a mess and severely underfunded.

â€œThe party of law and orderâ€. Yeah okay
		
Click to expand...

That is just wrong, plain and simple, 100% wrong.


----------



## gmc40 (Dec 1, 2019)

Slime said:



			That is just wrong, plain and simple, 100% wrong.
		
Click to expand...

Ah ok. I mustâ€™ve dreamt all those overturned convictions throughout the years. Sorry about that!


----------



## Slime (Dec 1, 2019)

gmc40 said:



			Ah ok. I mustâ€™ve dreamt all those overturned convictions throughout the years. Sorry about that!
		
Click to expand...

Better, much better. 
Apology accepted.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Dec 1, 2019)

Slime said:



			That is just wrong, plain and simple, 100% wrong.
		
Click to expand...

Are we to assume from your response that you would accept one person being wrongly executed?


----------



## TheDiablo (Dec 1, 2019)

Slime said:



			That is just wrong, plain and simple, 100% wrong.
		
Click to expand...

100% wrong? So it's OK to murder someone who later turns out to be innocent? Just because we got some of the others right?

Ironically it's your attitude that does indeed prove that our society needs a good cleanse...............

(did I do enough dots?)


----------



## Slime (Dec 1, 2019)

MetalMickie said:



			Are we to assume from your response that you would accept one person being wrongly executed?
		
Click to expand...




TheDiablo said:



			100% wrong? So it's OK to murder someone who later turns out to be innocent? Just because we got some of the others right?
		
Click to expand...


That statement was in response to the HIGHLIGHTED text in gmc40's post.
"*Thereâ€™s always a risk of miscarriage of justice resulting in the wrong person being killed. One is too many IMO*".
I replied "That is just wrong, plain and simple, 100% wrong".
Well, there is not ALWAYS a risk of a miscarriage of justice, as I pointed out in post # 66.

But don't let facts get in the way of a good argument.


----------



## robinthehood (Dec 1, 2019)

TheDiablo said:



			100% wrong? So it's OK to murder someone who later turns out to be innocent? Just because we got some of the others right?

Ironically it's your attitude that does indeed prove that our society needs a good cleanse...............

(did I do enough dots?)
		
Click to expand...

It's the usual knee jerk poorly thought out reaction.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Dec 1, 2019)

Slime said:



			That statement was in response to the HIGHLIGHTED text in gmc40's post.
"*Thereâ€™s always a risk of miscarriage of justice resulting in the wrong person being killed. One is too many IMO*".
I replied "That is just wrong, plain and simple, 100% wrong".
Well, there is not ALWAYS a risk of a miscarriage of justice, as I pointed out in post # 66.

But don't let facts get in the way of a good argument.
		
Click to expand...

So you are still not clear on this. 

Are you prepared to accept just  one wrongful execution as an acceptable price and, if so, are you willing to explain the State's position to the family of the wrongfully killed person?


----------



## gmc40 (Dec 1, 2019)

MetalMickie said:



			So you are still not clear on this.

Are you prepared to accept just  one wrongful execution as an acceptable price and, if so, are you willing to explain the State's position to the family of the wrongfully killed person?
		
Click to expand...

Heâ€™s given one example in post 66 where they â€œdeffo did itâ€. That would be scenario 1 on my earlier post.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Dec 1, 2019)

gmc40 said:



			Heâ€™s given one example in post 66 where they â€œdeffo did itâ€. That would be scenario 1 on my earlier post.
		
Click to expand...

But not answered the question initially raised by yourself in the third point in post #73.

It is a question that I have never had answered by any proponent of capital punishment. 

If, as I am sure we all do, we consider murder of just one person by terrorists/criminals to be unacceptable then is it any different if the State is responsible for the death?


----------



## bobmac (Dec 1, 2019)

There's not much point in arguing about what happens to a terrorist after the crime, efforts should be focused on deterring the terrorist from committing the crime in the first place.
IMO


----------



## gmc40 (Dec 1, 2019)

bobmac said:



			There's not much point in arguing about what happens to a terrorist after the crime, efforts should be focused on deterring the terrorist from committing the crime in the first place.
IMO
		
Click to expand...

Executing them as some advocate wonâ€™t help with that. What the police did the other day was 100% correct as the chap was wearing what appeared to be a suicide vest. They neutralised the threat and had a split second to make that decision. 

In other cases however, better to let them rot in prison and hope to de-radicalise them. In that scenario, thereâ€™s always a possibility of gaining valuable info that may prevent future attacks.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 1, 2019)

I tend to be of the opinion that dead terrorists become martyrs.
Imprisoned terrorists become forgotten, unless they go on hunger strike and kill themselves so they can become martyrs.
Not always the case though eg Mandela/ Ghandi.


----------



## stefanovic (Dec 1, 2019)

For the promise of virgins in Paradise, any male Muslim will be interested.
"If you become a martyr, God will give you 70 _virgins_, 70 wives and ... sura 56 verses 12 -40 ; sura 55 verses 54-56 ; sura _76_ verses 12-22.

For some people what they are told in the mosque they actually believe.


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Dec 1, 2019)

MetalMickie said:



			But not answered the question initially raised by yourself in the third point in post #73.

It is a question that I have never had answered by any proponent of capital punishment.

If, as I am sure we all do, we consider murder of just one person by terrorists/criminals to be unacceptable then is it any different if the State is responsible for the death?
		
Click to expand...

What puzzles me is that in the capital punishment debate it seems that we have to have polarised positions.
All murderers should be executed, or no murderers should be executed.
The first arises from this Country's former penalty for murder, I.e a fixed penalty, it being execution.
The second arises, it seems, from the desire to avoid executing an innocent person.
I am of the opinion that deterrence works, and the absence of the death sentence emboldens villains in that they now readily kill, as the present spate in London stabbing shows.
However, I do agree that executing the innocent is abhorrent.

But why cannot there be different punishments for murder convictions.
Because there are different circumstances each case, even though they all may be murder.
Some are plain horrific and without any form of doubt.
Others, there may be a degree of moral justification, E.g.cruel blackmail 
Others, the jury deliberate long and hard. And certainly I wouldn't execute those found guilty on a majority verdict.( is that allowed at present in murder cases?)
In all cases there is much evidence and information with the Judge, which the jury does not have, and he is in a more informed position and has experience to call on so that he could/would impose prison rather than execution if there was the slightest doubt in his mind.
In practice, that would mean most murderers would be imprisoned. But the clearest, most heinous would rightly be removed .
And there have been enough instances of really nasty murderers killing again for that "removal" to be a valid consideration


----------



## Wolf (Dec 1, 2019)

stefanovic said:



			For the promise of virgins in Paradise, any male Muslim will be interested.
"If you become a martyr, God will give you 70 _virgins_, 70 wives and ... sura 56 verses 12 -40 ; sura 55 verses 54-56 ; sura _76_ verses 12-22.

For some people what they are told in the mosque they actually believe.
		
Click to expand...

Generalisation of any male Muslim to suit your agenda. Not every Muslim will seek to become a jihadist just because the book says they'll be rewarded and its unbelievably naive or Islamaphobic to potentially suggest otherwise..


----------



## bobmac (Dec 1, 2019)

Wolf said:



			Generalisation of any male Muslim to suit your agenda. *Not every Muslim will seek to become a jihadist* just because the book says they'll be rewarded and its unbelievably naive or islamaphibic to potentially suggest otherwise..
		
Click to expand...

The problem is if only 0,1% of all muslims want to be a jihadist thats still 1.8 million people who want to cut your head off.


----------



## TheDiablo (Dec 1, 2019)

Swinglowandslow said:



			What puzzles me is that in the capital punishment debate it seems that we have to have polarised positions.
All murderers should be executed, or no murderers should be executed.
The first arises from this Country's former penalty for murder, I.e a fixed penalty, it being execution.
The second arises, it seems, from the desire to avoid executing an innocent person.
I am of the opinion that deterrence works, and the absence of the death sentence emboldens villains in that they now readily kill, as the present spate in London stabbing shows.
However, I do agree that executing the innocent is abhorrent.

But why cannot there be different punishments for murder convictions.
Because there are different circumstances each case, even though they all may be murder.
Some are plain horrific and without any form of doubt.
Others, there may be a degree of moral justification, E.g.cruel blackmail 
Others, the jury deliberate long and hard. And certainly I wouldn't execute those found guilty on a majority verdict.( is that allowed at present in murder cases?)
In all cases there is much evidence and information with the Judge, which the jury does not have, and he is in a more informed position and has experience to call on so that he could/would impose prison rather than execution if there was the slightest doubt in his mind.
In practice, that would mean most murderers would be imprisoned. But the clearest, most heinous would rightly be removed .
And there have been enough instances of really nasty murderers killing again for that "removal" to be a valid consideration
		
Click to expand...

How have you formed that opinion? Just a 'hunch' or actually based on anything? 

Empirical evidence shows otherwise. It actually shows that those with the death penalty have HIGHER homicide rates than those societies who have abolished it.


----------



## Wolf (Dec 1, 2019)

bobmac said:



			The problem is if only 0,1% of all muslims want to be a jihadist thats still 1.8 million people who want to cut your head off.
		
Click to expand...

That's still not every male Muslim though is it Bob. Yes it's an extremely large potential number of extremists and Jihadist, but there is no way to stop radicalisation across the world. We can have direct impact within our own borders but beyond that no matter what intelligence services do will we never be able to stop that. But that doesn't mean we should accept people tarnishing all muslims or other denominations with the same brush which was my point in the post you quoted.


----------



## harpo_72 (Dec 1, 2019)

bobmac said:



			The problem is if only 0,1% of all muslims want to be a jihadist thats still 1.8 million people who want to cut your head off.
		
Click to expand...

Better to refer to people not by religion because bad behaviours transcend religion. This is extremist behaviour and seriously we donâ€™t talk about enough of the others. 
What we need to see is the root cause and address this like those who have seen an opportunity to radicalise these people to commit these atrocities. 
What I am confused by, is where was the early release triggered, was it when he was given a determined time on his sentence? And who initiated that? 
I appreciate the legal system but sometimes I get the feeling that they get lost.


----------



## Slime (Dec 1, 2019)

MetalMickie said:



*So you are still not clear on this.*

Are you prepared to accept just  one wrongful execution as an acceptable price and, if so, are you willing to explain the State's position to the family of the wrongfully killed person?
		
Click to expand...

Okay, let me make myself a bit clearer.
One wrongful execution is one too many.


I'd still vote for the re-introduction of the death penalty .......................................... in an instant.


----------



## Slime (Dec 1, 2019)

MetalMickie said:



*But not answered the question initially raised by yourself in the third point in post #73.*

*It is a question that I have never had answered by any proponent of capital punishment.*

If, as I am sure we all do, we consider murder of just one person by terrorists/criminals to be unacceptable then is it any different if the State is responsible for the death?
		
Click to expand...

You have now. See previous post.

I still wished that we could have executed Usman Khan, two innocent people would still be alive and many lives would not have been ruined.


----------



## bobmac (Dec 1, 2019)

Wolf said:



			That's still not every male Muslim though is it Bob.
		
Click to expand...

I was agreeing with you, just pointing out that a tiny percentage is still a huge number


----------



## Slime (Dec 1, 2019)

I think some people should just calm down a bit.
The condescending and  nature of some of the replies on here really did surprise me, except from one person, just because I have a differing opinion.
I favour the death penalty, as do others, just accept it and/or counter it in an adult fashion.
That's not asking too much, surely?


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 1, 2019)

harpo_72 said:



			Better to refer to people not by religion because bad behaviours transcend religion. This is extremist behaviour and seriously we donâ€™t talk about enough of the others.
What we need to see is the root cause and address this like those who have seen an opportunity to radicalise these people to commit these atrocities.
What I am confused by, is where was the early release triggered, was it when he was given a determined time on his sentence? And who initiated that?
I appreciate the legal system but sometimes I get the feeling that they get lost.
		
Click to expand...

Can't remember the exact detail but didn't someone with an indeterminate sentence appeal to the ECJ or Court of Human Rights? And at that point, when the court found in favour of the criminal, those sentences were given a fixed term. From there, parole was always going to come into the mix.

I also seem to remember that due to overcrowding about 3 years back a significant number of prisoners were released earlier than the usual qualification period for parole.

Old age and that, I am probably wrong but think it was something like that.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 1, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			Can't remember the exact detail but didn't someone with an indeterminate sentence appeal to the ECJ or Court of Human Rights? And at that point, when the court found in favour of the criminal, those sentences were given a fixed term. From there, parole was always going to come into the mix.

I also seem to remember that due to overcrowding about 3 years back a significant number of prisoners were released earlier than the usual qualification period for parole.

Old age and that, I am probably wrong but think it was something like that.
		
Click to expand...

It was exactly that Bri, when the 3 won their case those on those sentences appealed.
https://thesecretbarrister.com/


----------



## Wolf (Dec 1, 2019)

bobmac said:



			I was agreeing with you, just pointing out that a tiny percentage is still a huge number
		
Click to expand...

Apologies if I took your reply in a way it wasn't intended Bob. Indeed a tiny percentage is still huge number but we can't control what happens outside our borders there is no way of combating radicalisation in any faith. 

We need to find a way on focusing on what we can control.


----------



## harpo_72 (Dec 1, 2019)

They skipped the parole board or assessment as well ?


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Dec 1, 2019)

Slime said:



			You have now. See previous post.

I still wished that we could have executed Usman Khan, two innocent people would still be alive and many lives would not have been ruined.
		
Click to expand...

But would not the same be true if he not only received a prison sentence commensurate with his original offences but also had to serve the full tariff?


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 1, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			It was exactly that Bri, when the 3 won their case those on those sentences appealed.
https://thesecretbarrister.com/

Click to expand...

At least the marbles aren't rattling too much


----------



## Slime (Dec 1, 2019)

MetalMickie said:



			But would not the same be true if he not only received a prison sentence commensurate with his original offences but also had to serve the full tariff?
		
Click to expand...

As for his two victims, most definitely.
However, there would always be a day when he is released and, at that point, he could instigate another terrorist attack which could end the lives of any number of innocent victims.
I don't believe we should EVER take that chance with people of his ilk.
I'd remove the threat at the earliest possible opportunity, that's all I'm saying.
Hey, I've even been told, in an earlier thread, that *I'm no better than Rigby's murderers* just because I advocated their execution!


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Dec 1, 2019)

Slime said:



			As for his two victims, most definitely.
However, there would always be a day when he is released and, at that point, he could instigate another terrorist attack which could end the lives of any number of innocent victims.
I don't believe we should EVER take that chance with people of his ilk.
I'd remove the threat at the earliest possible opportunity, that's all I'm saying.
Hey, I've even been told, in an earlier thread, that *I'm no better than Rigby's murderers* just because I advocated their execution!
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately so many are incapable of debating issues such as capital punishment without resorting to personal attacks. 

I respect your position whilst not agreeing with you. That's how it should be in a civilised society.


----------



## harpo_72 (Dec 1, 2019)

Slime said:



			As for his two victims, most definitely.
However, there would always be a day when he is released and, at that point, he could instigate another terrorist attack which could end the lives of any number of innocent victims.
I don't believe we should EVER take that chance with people of his ilk.
I'd remove the threat at the earliest possible opportunity, that's all I'm saying.
Hey, I've even been told, in an earlier thread, that *I'm no better than Rigby's murderers* just because I advocated their execution!
		
Click to expand...

I think in the end here 2 people died and several were maimed but the execution took place. 
Whether you agree or not the rule was set and we will have a massive post-mortem on these rules and the Policeman who followed the rules. 
For me I understand the rule set and as far as I am concerned they are justified. The fact the vest was a dummy is inconsequential, there was an intent. 
In a way itâ€™s a death penalty.


----------



## stefanovic (Dec 1, 2019)

Wolf said:



			Generalisation of any male Muslim to suit your agenda. Not every Muslim will seek to become a jihadist just because the book says they'll be rewarded and its unbelievably naive or *islamaphibic* to potentially suggest otherwise..
		
Click to expand...

Apart from your speling being atroshus your logic is too.

Islam works off a book called the Koran, which is not kind to unbelievers.
There are some who believe in every word and will follow its instruction, especially so if encouraged by faith leaders.
The penalty for apostasy or blasphemy within their own community can also be death.
But there are many others who are moderate and for them it is mainly cultural.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Dec 1, 2019)

stefanovic said:



			Apart from your* speling* being *atroshus* your logic is too.

Islam works off a book called the Koran, which is not kind to unbelievers.
There are some who believe in every word and will follow its instruction, especially so if encouraged by faith leaders.
The penalty for apostasy or blasphemy within their own community can also be death.
But there are many others who are moderate and for them it is mainly cultural.
		
Click to expand...

Right... Rule 1... If you are going to have a go at other members for their spelling, make sure yours is perfect

Rule 2, I want to make it quite clear that mass generalizations of any kind regarding race, religion etc are not helpful, especially when taken out of context

Some of your posts are right on the line and are in danger of crossing it, best post on another subject.


----------



## Wolf (Dec 1, 2019)

stefanovic said:



			Apart from your speling being atroshus your logic is too.

Islam works off a book called the Koran, which is not kind to unbelievers.
There are some who believe in every word and will follow its instruction, especially so if encouraged by faith leaders.
The penalty for apostasy or blasphemy within their community can also be death.
But there are many others who are moderate and for them it is mainly cultural.
		
Click to expand...

As for my spelling I think you actually mean the Quran to give the book its correct spelling and title instead of the western Koran spelling we give it if you want to be factual.

And funny enough I know well enough about Islam having served several tours in Islamic countries. Meaning I've seen both sides the extremism in all its glory and the many more followers that are a truly peaceful people.

Yes there are those that take some of its text literal and feel anointed by Allah to take up the Jihad against the west. But then let's not blame it all on the book shall we because  in the bible such as leviticus and Deuteronomy books have several passages telling people to kill in the name of God for those who worship false prophets, it also states punishments for women laying with men, or blasphemers.

The issue comes down to 1 thing and that's not the book but the  extreme factions, your initial post was to say it will appeal to every male is Islamaphobic (is that spelling better for you)

What would your answer be then to solve such an issue because clearly digging people out for being male and Muslim saying they will be interested  is ridiculous. As for my logic being atrocious what because I don't feel that someone should be tarred with a brush because they have a religious belief that sadly some others hide behind to carry out atrocities. Your just showing yourself to be ignorant.


----------



## stefanovic (Dec 1, 2019)

Wolf said:



			As for my spelling I think you actually mean the Quran to give the book its correct spelling and title instead of the western Koran spelling we give it if you want to be factual.
		
Click to expand...

As for my atroshus speling, I'm sure most folk here would recognise my deliberate misspelling.
Koran, Quran, Qur'an is a word spelt in different ways.




			And funny enough I know well enough about Islam having served several tours in Islamic countries. Meaning I've seen both sides the extremism in all its glory and the many more followers that are a truly peaceful people.
		
Click to expand...

I was never in the military but I have also visited many Muslim countries as a tourist and had a Muslim girlfriend for a few years.




			let's not blame it all on the book shall we because  in the bible such as leviticus and Deuteronomy books have several passages telling people to kill in the name of God for those who worship false prophets, it also states punishments for women laying with men, or blasphemers.
		
Click to expand...

In England we can thank much of that to the Glorious Revolution in 1688 when religious wars became less frequent.
Unfortunately the Islamic world has not always seen good sense and is probably a hundred years behind us.




			The issue comes down to 1 thing and that's not the book but the  extreme factions, your initial post was to say it will appeal to every male is *Islamaphobic* (is that spelling better for you)
		
Click to expand...

Still wrong. Give you one more try.




			What would your answer be then to solve such an issue because clearly digging people out for being male and Muslim saying they will be interested  is ridiculous. As for my logic being atrocious what because I don't feel that someone should be tarred with a brush because they have a religious belief that sadly some others hide behind to carry out atrocities. Your just showing yourself to be ignorant.
		
Click to expand...

In the light of science all religions are wrong but we still live the dark age of religion. Education is the answer.


----------



## Slime (Dec 1, 2019)

MetalMickie said:



			Unfortunately so many are incapable of debating issues such as capital punishment without resorting to personal attacks.

I respect your position whilst not agreeing with you. That's how it should be in a civilised society.
		
Click to expand...

I absolutely ditto the above.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 1, 2019)

The Death Penalty will not be re introduced into the UK

Itâ€™s not a deterrent and there will always be a chance of an innocent man being killed

What does need to happen is a reform of the prison service

Some crimes should mean life no parole and life should be hard life , no luxuries , no vistors , solitary confinement for the worst , in a cell for 23 hours , one hour walk around a yard - it should be a punishment

Some will always emotionally feel that killing someone should be an available punishment but we as a civilised society moved past that a long time ago


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 1, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The Death Penalty will not be re introduced into the UK

Itâ€™s not a deterrent and there will always be a chance of an innocent man being killed

What does need to happen is a reform of the prison service

Some crimes should mean life no parole and life should be hard life , no luxuries , no vistors , solitary confinement for the worst , in a cell for 23 hours , one hour walk around a yard - it should be a punishment

Some will always emotionally feel that killing someone should be an available punishment but we as a civilised society moved past that a long time ago
		
Click to expand...

You are correct, but Iâ€™d still like it available as an option for judges when dealing with child killers. (Thatâ€™s my issue to deal with though)


----------



## Blue in Munich (Dec 1, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The Death Penalty will not be re introduced into the UK

*Itâ€™s not a deterrent *and there will always be a chance of an innocent man being killed

What does need to happen is a reform of the prison service

Some crimes should mean life no parole and life should be hard life , no luxuries , no vistors , solitary confinement for the worst , in a cell for 23 hours , one hour walk around a yard - it should be a punishment

Some will always emotionally feel that killing someone should be an available punishment but we as a civilised society moved past that a long time ago
		
Click to expand...

In your opinion.  Others may differ.


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 1, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			You are correct, but Iâ€™d still like it available as an option for judges when dealing with child killers. (Thatâ€™s my issue to deal with though)
		
Click to expand...

There is a danger when sentences are very stiff that a criminal will commit an extreme crime in the hope of hiding something not quite as extreme. The example given at the time was the suggestion that the sentence for a paedophile should be life. The worry was that if a paedo gets life for abuse might he actually commit murder in the hope of hiding the crime. Its a tough one to reconcile...


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 1, 2019)

Blue in Munich said:



			In your opinion.  Others may differ.
		
Click to expand...

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/s...e-the-death-penalty-is-an-effective-deterrent

They may differ but then just ask why crime still happens in countries where the death penalty exists - itâ€™s clearly not stopping people from committing the level of crime that some countries use it as a punishment so how can it be a deterrent?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/thec...th-penalty-is-a-deterrent-against-crime-43227


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 1, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			There is a danger when sentences are very stiff that a criminal will commit an extreme crime in the hope of hiding something not quite as extreme. The example given at the time was the suggestion that the sentence for a paedophile should be life. The worry was that if a paedo gets life for abuse might he actually commit murder in the hope of hiding the crime. Its a tough one to reconcile...
		
Click to expand...

Agreed Bri, Itâ€™s certainly difficult, I donâ€™t think itâ€™s a deterrent in itself, but Child killers, Iâ€™d do them.


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 1, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Agreed Bri, Itâ€™s certainly difficult, I donâ€™t think itâ€™s a deterrent in itself, but Child killers, Iâ€™d do them.
		
Click to expand...

I just can't agree to the death penalty. Its just not in my DNA. However, for extremes like child killers I'd like life to be life. For them to have no TV, no newspapers, no books, no visitors, and solitary confinement apart from when they are working. And for them to have to work for their food. Don't work, no food.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 1, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			I just can't agree to the death penalty. Its just not in my DNA. However, for extremes like child killers I'd like life to be life. For them to have no TV, no newspapers, no books, no visitors, and solitary confinement apart from when they are working. And for them to have to work for their food. Don't work, no food.
		
Click to expand...

I could be persuaded if that was the punishment, but sadly we are were we are.


----------



## Fish (Dec 1, 2019)

So should we recall all these, or wait just like we did for their mate to surface only to murder innocents?

https://trib.al/XXNVew3


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 1, 2019)

Fish said:



			So should we recall all these, or wait just like we did for their mate to surface only to murder innocents?

https://trib.al/XXNVew3

Click to expand...

You would hope they would be looking into all those released to understand the threat and then also looking into the laws they created to allow people to be released


----------



## Slime (Dec 1, 2019)

Fish said:



			So should we recall all these, or wait just like we did for their mate to surface only to murder innocents?

https://trib.al/XXNVew3

Click to expand...

YES.
Without a doubt.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 1, 2019)

Fish said:



			So should we recall all these, or wait just like we did for their mate to surface only to murder innocents?

https://trib.al/XXNVew3

Click to expand...

Legally they canâ€™t be recalled for no reason, all should be reviewed (boris claimed today there were over 70 that have been released)
All should be reviewed and were appropriate the relevant action taken.
2 possible scenarios:

1, The intelligence services may have some of them being watched and if they are simply lifted it may have an adverse reaction on stopping or catching more.

2, Some Human Rights Lawyer sues the Government on their behalf and they are freed again in a few months with a pocket full of cash and the possibility weâ€™ve given them cash to fund terrorists activities.

What we should/need to do is review all of them at the highest level and ensure both the Security Services, Probation Services and anyone else with an eye on them is correctly funded and resourced to carry out the job required.

Any knee jerk reaction could come back to bite us.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Dec 1, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Accidents happen all the time Bri.

Click to expand...

Letâ€™s not take this tangent any further please


----------



## Hacker Khan (Dec 2, 2019)

A father of one of the victims is showing a lot of class, arguably more then some politicians...  


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1201288614329692161


----------



## Fish (Dec 2, 2019)

Hacker Khan said:



			A father of one of the victims is showing a lot of class, arguably more then some politicians... 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1201288614329692161

Click to expand...

I donâ€™t see anything in those headlines or in the content other than factual news, in that, a review of those 70+ like Usman are  being reviewed urgently, and rightly so, and that an arrest quickly followed of one of those on licence for plotting a terrorist attack, who just happened to be also from Staffordshire!

Thereâ€˜s an obviously and direct link to the atrocities of London Bridge and those that lost their lives in regards to this immediate and needed review and further arrests need to be reported for the public to see that stronger and proactive action is being taken in the wake of such an incident. 

The victims personal or political  views or those of their parents should not hinder the free press from reporting such positive news just because they are staunchly against the Conservatives or any right of centre newspapers.


----------



## oxymoron (Dec 2, 2019)

harpo_72 said:



			I think in the end here 2 people died and several were maimed but the *execution* took place.
Whether you agree or not the rule was set and we will have a massive post-mortem on these rules and the Policeman who followed the rules.
For me I understand the rule set and as far as I am concerned they are justified. The fact the vest was a dummy is inconsequential, there was an intent.
In a way itâ€™s a death penalty.
		
Click to expand...

Regarding the bit in bold , i do not think there was an execution by any stretch of the imagination and saying such is very emotive .

I do not know whether i favor capital punishment i , personally would need more information on the safeguards etc but we do need better systems 
to monitor\imprison these people , its no good pointing the finger at 1 party i think  it is a general society shift in how the prison regimes are 
instigated and we need to make sure what we have is fit for purpose .


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 2, 2019)

Tell you something for nothing - the idea of Christian forgiveness isn't always easy in practice...


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Dec 2, 2019)

Hacker Khan said:



			A father of one of the victims is showing a lot of class, arguably more then some politicians... 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1201288614329692161

Click to expand...


I am afraid I would have to disagree. 

In promoting his more liberal stance the victim's father is nearly as guilty of exploiting this tragic event as the "hang 'em, flog 'em" brigade.

I appreciate it must be extremely difficult for him but I think he would have been better served by maintaining a dignified silence and indifference towards those publications.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Dec 2, 2019)

Fish said:



			I donâ€™t see anything in those headlines or in the content other than factual news, in that, a review of those 70+ like Usman are  being reviewed urgently, and rightly so, and that an arrest quickly followed of one of those on licence for plotting a terrorist attack, who just happened to be also from Staffordshire!

Thereâ€˜s an obviously and direct link to the atrocities of London Bridge and those that lost their lives in regards to this immediate and needed review and further arrests need to be reported for the public to see that stronger and proactive action is being taken in the wake of such an incident.

The victims personal or political  views or those of their parents should not hinder the free press from reporting such positive news just because they are staunchly against the Conservatives or any right of centre newspapers.
		
Click to expand...

It's not the fact that they are not reporting 'factual' news that I think he is upset about.  More that in his opinion based on everything him and his son stood for, the news and the way he perceives politicians are using his sons death is not 'positive' in his opinion.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Dec 2, 2019)

MetalMickie said:



			I am afraid I would have to disagree.

In promoting his more liberal stance the victim's father is nearly as guilty of exploiting this tragic event as the "hang 'em, flog 'em" brigade.

I appreciate it must be extremely difficult for him *but I think he would have been better served by maintaining a dignified silence and indifference towards those publications*.
		
Click to expand...

So his son is killed and he should not say anything about how he perceives the actions of politicians/media on the back of the incident are against everything his son stood for? I personally think he is showing remarkable understanding and compassion at such a terrible time for his family.  When should victims of these type of incidents speak out then?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 2, 2019)

And let's not forget that perhaps what the father is subconsciously pointing us towards are the words of Gordon Wilson on the murder of his daughter Marie by the IRA that Enniskillen Remembrance Day.

Gordon Wilson forgave her killers and added: _"I shall pray for those people tonight and every night."
"I have lost my daughter, and we shall miss her. But I bear no ill will. I bear no grudge. Dirty sort of talk is not going to bring her back to life._


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Dec 2, 2019)

Hacker Khan said:



			It's not the fact that they are not reporting 'factual' news that I think he is upset about.  More that in his opinion based on everything him and his son stood for, the news and the way he perceives politicians are using his sons death is not 'positive' in his opinion.
		
Click to expand...

I see no evidence of anyone "using" his son's death for political gain. 

Politicians should be expected to react in the wake of a terrorist attack. That, after all, is part of their remit.

The general consensus seems to be that the circumstances surrounding the attacker's previous sentence and release should, at least,  be subject to review and discussion. 

The father's response,  whilst possibly understandable, is  intended to influence the discussion in the same way as those newspapers.


----------



## Fish (Dec 2, 2019)

Hacker Khan said:



			So his son is killed and he should not say anything about how he perceives the actions of politicians/media on the back of the incident are against everything his son stood for? I personally think he is showing remarkable understanding and compassion at such a terrible time for his family.  When should victims of these type of incidents speak out then?
		
Click to expand...

I disagree, I wouldnâ€™t want my sons death to not change anything thus protecting others from the same heinous crime.

Iâ€™ve read a lot about his views on our current judicial system and his focus in wanting to radically change them, in lessening lengthy sentences and not detaining people unnecessarily, the term â€˜draconian sentencesâ€™ has been used, or in simple words, softening up our current system, when in fact, which is evident by his loss of life, they need totally the opposite!

This terrorist and callous murderer used the current [soft] system to fool good people with his views into a false situation where he then planned to kill as many innocent people as possible.

Personally I agree with a new category being formed for Terrorists that simply mean they get a life sentence, no parole, life means life, period.

You cannot and will not de radicalised these people, if you let them out, after any period of time, they will simply start to kill again in some manner either directly or indirectly, as such, a life term for terrorism is whatâ€™s needed, and Iâ€™m confident that the young man in question would voted
against such a sentence, but unfortunately heâ€™s died by the evident failures of his own beliefs, which is a shame.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Dec 2, 2019)

MetalMickie said:



*I see no evidence of anyone "using" his son's death for political gain.*

Politicians should be expected to react in the wake of a terrorist attack. That, after all, is part of their remit.

The general consensus seems to be that the circumstances surrounding the attacker's previous sentence and release should, at least,  be subject to review and discussion.

The father's response,  whilst possibly understandable, is  intended to influence the discussion in the same way as those newspapers.
		
Click to expand...

Really?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1201199028316205056

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1201217895440830465

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1201218337134522370
Would they have posted these attacks on Corbyn for political gain if the incident would have not happened?


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 2, 2019)

Hacker Khan said:



			Really?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1201199028316205056

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1201217895440830465

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1201218337134522370
Would they have posted these attacks on Corbyn for political gain if the incident would have not happened?
		
Click to expand...

They have:
https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.co...s-soft-on-terror-soft-on-the-causes-of-terror

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/0...xtremists-ira-hamas-hezbollah-britain-labour/

https://www.politicshome.com/news/u.../news/86233/michael-fallon-jeremy-corbyn-weak


----------



## gmc40 (Dec 2, 2019)

Shameless aren’t they. This pretty much sums them up;


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1201437113641787392


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 2, 2019)

Well it didn’t take too long for some to use it as a political scoring point - no surprise it’s the usuals. Some people should be ashamed


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 2, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Well it didn’t take too long for some to use it as a political scoring point - no surprise it’s the usuals. Some people should be ashamed
		
Click to expand...

No one is doing that. The Thread is about the terrorists, whether they should be let out on license and the way politicians have been involved in their sentences.  You seem to be suggesting its something people shouldnt debate, its nothing to do with disrespect for the victims, its about dealing with the perpetrators.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 2, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			No one is doing that. The Thread is about the terrorists, whether they should be let out on license and the way politicians have been involved in their sentences.  You seem to be suggesting its something people shouldnt debate, its nothing to do with disrespect for the victims, its about dealing with the perpetrators.
		
Click to expand...

🙄 someone has just posted up a load of social media posts of people using the incident to score political posts 🤦‍♂️ 

you even responded to one 🙄


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 2, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			🙄 someone has just posted up a load of social media posts of people using the incident to score political posts 🤦‍♂️

you even responded to one 🙄
		
Click to expand...

Yes, that's part of the discussion, how politicians are reacting and how they have historically reacted to terrorist attacks.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 2, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			Yes, that's part of the discussion, how politicians are reacting and how they have historically reacted to terrorist attacks.
		
Click to expand...

You can’t see it can you 🤦‍♂️

Two innocent people died and the Tory social media outlets are using it to try and show up Corbyn and it’s also no surprise the Tories boys can’t see it.

I thought Brexit ripped the country apart - the current campaigns are now beyond the pale and truly embarrassing, it’s beyond shameful some of the stuff being posted all over social media.


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 2, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			You can’t see it can you 🤦‍♂️

Two innocent people died and the Tory social media outlets are using it to try and show up Corbyn and it’s also no surprise the Tories boys can’t see it.

I thought Brexit ripped the country apart - the current campaigns are now beyond the pale and truly embarrassing, it’s beyond shameful some of the stuff being posted all over social media.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I can see it but its not jut the Torys is it.
Look at the link in #138


----------

