Judge releases child killers - Page 2

Sirius · 12-01-2008, 16:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

"...tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime...."

Yeah right!

More like

WEAK on Crime TOUGH on the victims of crime.

Labour are as much use as a lighthouse in the desert

Quote:

Sentencing the boys, Judge McKinnon said: "I simply express the hope that what has happened to you, that you have had to serve two months of the original sentence, has benefited you."

[Admin Edit: Swearing in posts is not permitted]

papa smurf · 12-01-2008, 18:04

Quote:
Sentencing the boys, Judge McKinnon said: "I simply express the hope that what has happened to you, that you have had to serve two months of the original sentence, has benefited you."
Then they probably got a couple of quad bikes for christmas, or mini motos ,as a thank you for being such upright pillars of the comunity

---------- Post added at 17:04 ---------- Previous post was at 16:58 ----------

[QUOTE=Sirius;34469263]More like

WEAK on Crime TOUGH on the victims of crime.

Labour are as much use as a lighthouse in the desert

never heard of the ship of the desert then

**Hugh** · 12-01-2008, 18:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirius

More like
WEAK on Crime TOUGH on the victims of crime.

Labour are as much use as a lighthouse in the desert
[Admin Edit: Removed]

Don't blame the judge, as (from the Mail) -
"But last month the Court of Appeal quashed the manslaughter convictions.
They again appeared before Judge Warwick McKinnon, but this time at Croydon Crown Court where they were given the supervision orders....
....the boys were given 12-month supervision orders for violent disorder."
They were being sentenced for the violent disorder crimes - he was probably following the Government's guidelines, which is all he is allowed to do (otherwise another appeal happens).

As the DI in charge of the case said "That is in no way a criticism of the judge, that's a criticism of the law that doesn't allow a stiffer sentence."

We should be angry at the lawyers, who put the case that (again from the Mail) - "Lawyers said the conviction for manslaughter was not safe, arguing that Mr Norton's death could not be laid at the boys' door because the pensioner had a heart condition – he had a triple bypass in 1977."

**Mick** · 12-01-2008, 18:47

Polite Reminder:

It would appear by looking in this thread, some members are still *partially* starring out swear words to evade the swear filter - this is not permitted. Such posts are liable for deletion and infraction warnings may be issued.

Osem · 12-01-2008, 22:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by foreverwar

We should be angry at the lawyers, who put the case that (again from the Mail) - [I]"Lawyers said the conviction for manslaughter was not safe, arguing that Mr Norton's death could not be laid at the boys' door because the pensioner had a heart condition ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ he had a triple bypass in 1977."[/I]

Of course it wasn't safe - his death was clearly just a co-incidence and nothing whatsoever to do with being attacked, verbally abused and stoned by a mob of thugs.....

Sirius · 12-01-2008, 22:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem

Of course it wasn't safe - his death was clearly just a co-incidence and nothing whatsoever to do with being attacked, verbally abused and stoned by a mob of thugs.....

Best thing now is to send the *******s on a holiday or two. Then sit down with them and see how much security at taxpayers expense they need, A change of name and new housing, Jobs, Life. Then maybe in future people will think twice about allowing themselves to be stoned to death.

Osem · 12-01-2008, 23:24

Yes come to think of it I reckon the victim was to blame for it all and these respectful children should be compensated for their hideous ordeal. I mean what sort of decent, self respecting person would have the audacity to go out with his son for a highly provocative game of cricket in the local park and then spoil all these poor kids ballistic fun by having a fatal heart attack for no good reason!!! Tut, tut, tut .... the older generation eh ..... what is the world coming to????

Sirius · 12-01-2008, 23:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem

Yes come to think of it I reckon the victim was to blame for it all and these respectful children should be compensated for their hideous ordeal. I mean what sort of decent, self respecting person would have the audacity to go out with his son for a highly provocative game of cricket in the local park and then spoil all these poor kids ballistic fun by having a fatal heart attack for no good reason!!! Tut, tut, tut .... the older generation eh ..... what is the world coming to????

Be careful you might be accused of reading non do gooder newspapers next for making statements like that

**Hugh** · 13-01-2008, 00:06

Isn't it nice to see a recursive closed-cycle paradigm reinforcement discussion?

Bless.......

btw, I think it's wrong that these kids got away with what they did - but blame the lawyers who used the system, not the judge who had to follow the rules (imho).

Xaccers · 13-01-2008, 00:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirius

Best thing now is to send the *******s on a holiday or two.

May I suggest Gaza as a destination?
Perhaps offer them some trendy headgear?

My sympathies go with the members of the victim's family, and the judge for having to give the sentence he did.
How awful must it be to be in a position of passing punishment but being forced to give a slap on the wrist, especially when you sentenced them to a harsher punishment only a few months earlier.
I'd be spitting nails with fury at the government.

Sirius · 13-01-2008, 01:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Isn't it nice to see a recursive closed-cycle paradigm reinforcement discussion?

Bless.......

btw, I think it's wrong that these kids got away with what they did - but blame the lawyers who used the system, not the judge who had to follow the rules (imho).

You can bless who you want.

I stand by my words. They have been let off MURDER. And its because the Do Gooder types have got there way AGAIN

Xaccers · 13-01-2008, 01:15

Murder requires intent to kill.
Manslaughter yes, as per the original conviction, and yes, like I'm sure the judge views it, they've been let off for causing the death of someone.

**Hugh** · 13-01-2008, 15:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirius

You can bless who you want.

I stand by my words. They have been let off MURDER. And its because the Do Gooder types have got there way AGAIN

Nothing to do with "do-gooders", all to do with lawyers using the system (imho).

Mr Angry · 13-01-2008, 15:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Nothing to do with "do-gooders", all to do with lawyers using the system (imho).

Interesting fact No. 63599(b) from "Mr Angry's book of interesting facts".

If you take away all the letters from the word "Lawyers" and replace them with different letters and jumble them up it spells "Do-gooders". Fact!

**Hugh** · 13-01-2008, 16:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Interesting fact No. 63599(b) from "Mr Angry's book of interesting facts".

If you take away all the letters from the word "Lawyers" and replace them with different letters and jumble them up it spells "Do-gooders". Fact!

Don't you have to add some letters, or do they magically appear from a parallel multiverse?