Family Honour
A few months ago I went to see the English film version of one of Stieg Larsson’s excellent novels, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. In the climax of the film there is a scene in which a psychopathic killer strings up one of the characters on a chain and then proceeds to suffocate them by placing a clear plastic bag over their head.
I found it quite a shocking and disturbing scene, which it is absolutely intended to be, because the whole point is to make clear the extraordinary evil of the killer, and the real consequence of his appalling behaviour. It left me feeling quite sick. I suspect it was quite realistic about what would happen if you did that to some poor soul. And it went on for quite a long time.
So, both parents of Shafilea Ahmed have been found guilty of the murder of their daughter. Iftikhar and Farzana Ahmed, of Warrington, Cheshire, stand up and take a bow! In the name of the honour of your family, you killed your teenage daughter. The most probable method is that you stuffed a plastic bag into your daughter’s mouth and suffocated her. You did this because having settled in this country, having been sheltered and protected by its laws, and allowed to prosper by whatever means, your daughter displayed some indications that she might like to avail herself of the still prevailing freedoms this country offered, and not be treated as a mere pawn to be married off to the man of your choice, like a mare sent to stud. I wonder what other values of this country you would like to trample down.
But worry not on my rhetorical question. Now, your family’s honour can truly be said to be upheld! Bravo! How you ancestors must have sung your praises as you bundled her body into a car and unceremoniously dumped it to be left on a riverbank to rot, miles from anywhere. And then threatened your other children into silence – for a while.
One always has to be careful about opining on guilt or innocence, even after a trial, because in most cases if you are not actually there, the second hand reports that you get can be misleading. However, I have followed this one closely, and I shall be frank that if I had been called up for jury service I would have had to disqualify myself, because I had a view on the correct verdict before the case started. It was all too clear what had gone on at the hands of these disgusting people.
I can’t decide which of these two hateful, vile, cruel and utterly repellent individuals I despise and loath the most. The father? In my experience fathers often have a closer connection with their daughters than the mothers do. Doubtless he would have exerted the most physical force as his daughter retched and convulsed her way into the blue yonder. What a nasty, cruel, brutal and evil man.
But no, I hope there is a special piece of eternal damnation and hell fire booked for the mother. It is not just the complicity of a mother in the vicious murder of her own child. It is not just the plotting to cover up. No, it is the cowardly attempt to save her own skin and blame it all on her husband (via the court appointed interpreter, naturally, that makes you seem all the more vulnerable and put upon) that really finishes it off as a true pièce de résistance.
And this comes the day after Shabir Ahmed, the man previously jailed for 19 years as the leader of a ring of Asian “gentlemen” who organised the serial sexual abusing young girls in May, was given an extra term of 30 years for over 30 counts of rape of an Asian girl whom he treated as his “possession” for personal gratification.
And on the other side of the coin we have the parents of Indian student Anuj Bidve, a model student who came to this country to study electronics. He was a gifted student, who already had a degree. I understand he was working on developing a computer chip that helped monitor heart rates.
His killer, Kiaran (and yes, his parents couldn’t even spell his name his correctly) Stapleton, an utterly pointless product of the moral vacuum which has spawned our delightful under-classes, shot him in the head with a 9mm pistol for a lark, and has yet to show any remorse. In fact he seems very pleased with himself. He was jailed for a minimum of 30 years at tax payers’ expense last week.
There are times when I wish I could change my views on capital punishment, and this is one of them.
The parents of the verminous Stapleton stayed away from the trial. The poor parents of the innocent Bidve did not. Grief stricken but brave, they attended in the presence , of the excuse for a human being who had cut short the life of a fine young man full of potential, and lodged a victim impact statement. He was their only son. They had misgivings about sending him abroad, but had borrowed for them the colossal sum of £25,000 to help him fulfil his dream. They were utterly distraught, but the father still wants to meet his sons killer, to try to understand,
I suspect that there is no point. One can no more “understand” a killer like Stapleton than one can “understand” a rabid dog. In fact, probably less so, because you could diagnose the dog, and feel sorry for what the disease was doing to it, whereas Stapleton is merely a gap in proper working of the Universe which is worthless of any attention whatsoever.
Nevertheless, there is a family with honour.
Gildas the Monk
August 7, 2012 at 20:40
-
Furor, what can I say? Two hearts that beat as one. We are in full accord.
Lonely though, isn’t it?
- August 8, 2012 at 04:44
-
Quite.
- August 6, 2012 at 19:34
-
Furor Teutonicus I’m afraid to say that you haven’t been adequately
brainwashed on the Grand Europe plan – so it is off to an approved
re-education camp for you. You will find that the instructors previously
served Pol Pot in achieving his grand plan and are zealous in ensuring
Comrades Van Rumpoy and Barrosso WILL become your role model. You may not
enjoy your punishment but you will have learned a valuable lesson!
- August 7, 2012 at 05:00
-
You are certainly not wrong. I have never seen so much “Isn’t the
forigner nice!” shite, as I have seen in the “approved” books for these
courses.
The idea is “intergration”, but you will be hard pushed to find one topic
that does not praise to the heavens that “despite all the problems put in
their way, the Mustafa w’hank family have managed to keep their own culture
despite being in a foriegn land!”
It would appear that, the E.Us definition of “intergration” is that WE
learn THEIR language, and start wearing bin bags as a fashion item.
These courses and the course materials, only serve to re-enforce this
impression.
THEN their is “the green issue”. Well, you can guess which side they are
on there.
All, of course, paid for by the tax payers of the various E.U member
countries.
- August 5, 2012 at 22:37
-
Im not sure any of this is about the pros and cons of capital punishment.
At root it is all about racism. We have a society which cannot establish what
it wants to be, and which lacks confidence in what it stands for any more. We
tollerate people coming here who do not speak – or ever learn to – our
language. How do we resolve that? Do we prohibit people from settling here who
dont speak our tongue? Do we provide classes – compulsory or not – to bring
new arrivals up to proficiency? No, we provide leaflets in mirriad scripts and
interpreters at the taxpayers expense and leave them in a ghetto as ignorant
as the illiterate flock before King James. Musn’t impose our language. Thats
racist.
We play a little game where I work when we hear news reports or crimes on
the media. Its uncanny how you can tell which ethnic group is likely to have
“done it” just by hearing the details. Gun crime? Google that one. Gang rape?
Guess. Stabbing, drug dealing, trying to blow up aircraft, murdering your
daughters? Mustn’t profile people, that’d be racist.
We can all stand back here and wring our hands at the disgusting story of
that girl’s murder, but what did her teachers report? What did her classmates
report? What did those boys who had numbers on her phone report? What did the
PC authorities do about it?
We are a racist society. We permit people to come here then abandon them to
their fate for fear of upsetting their sensitivities. What is more racist than
making an ethnic group an exception – because it would be racist to treat them
the same as everyone else on this island?
I will be honest, I oppose the import of people to our country. But I
accept they are here. And I accept that they should be treated as equals. But
that is absolute. They have to assimilate. And we have to make it clear that
it is expected that they adopt our cultural rules, our language, our attitudes
to the law and to relations between genders, faiths, sexualities etc etc.
This tragedy would not have been prevented by Capital Punishment. What kind
of Briton would do such a thing? But it may have been prevented if the family
were British.
- August 6, 2012 at 05:02
-
XX Do we provide classes – compulsory or not – to bring new arrivals up
to proficiency? XX
Yes, you do. Every E.U member country does. “Intergration” courses, paid
for out of the European social fund.
BUT, I lecture at a few per month here. And their, in this case German,
is ABYSMAL.
The3 courses run from A1 to C2. A1 being absolute beginers, with “Ja”,
“nein”, etc as the level. B1 is the level at which the actual “Intergration”
part comes into it, and is the certificate demanded by the immigration
department.
However, I have lectured in B2, and even C1 classes, where I ask the
teacher there if someone is making a packet of money selling these
certificates at the arrivals gate at the airport. Because the level of
grammatik and their Vocabularly would not get them a C.S.E in Britain. And
this is in multiple schools. It is not as if I have just come accross a
perfectly bad example.
-
August 4, 2012 at 18:52
-
Mr Sticker,
It might be helpful for Mr Teutonicus to read your suggested
book. He seems to deny original sin.
- August 4, 2012 at 19:30
-
XX Mr Teutonicus to read your suggested book. He seems to deny original
sin.XX
Origional what?
I presume that is something to do with your hobby? Some “christian”
guff?
Aye well. SOME of us live in the REAL world, and not that dreamed up by
the fans of some neo stone age desert hippy who liked hanging around with a
couple of sailors and some Tel Aviv whore.
- August 4, 2012 at 15:36
-
On this very subject: may I introduce the work of David M Buss, “The Murderer Next Door: Why the Mind Is Designed to Kill”.
Sobering, but highly relevant. For those who attempt to understand the
motivation of killers, very much an eye opener. For those of us of a more
cynical mindset. Not so much.
-
August 4, 2012 at 14:48
-
Well written Gildas— support your words. The girl must have lived through
true horror and been terrified at the end
-
August 4, 2012 at 14:45
-
Mr Teutonicus,
Not sure you understand the difference between argument and abuse.
I AM
in favour of hanging, that’s what I’m saying.
(I suspect you are in favour
of hanging (even for yourself) because you are so certain of your goodness
that you think you could never commit a serious crime).
But I’m trying to justify hanging by reference to reason, which might stand
some chance of convincing people who are against it, rather than by emitting a
Caliban-like howl of primal rage.
- August 4, 2012 at 14:57
-
XX (I suspect you are in favour of hanging (even for yourself) because
you are so certain of your goodness that you think you could never commit a
serious crime). Xx
Not at all. I merely apply the same rules to myself as I expect from all
others.
-
August 4, 2012 at 13:43
-
Mr Teutonicus,
These “arseholes” as you forcefully put it are all too
human.
It is simply avoiding the issue to try to pretend as they do in the
US that anyone who commits a serious crime ceases to be human and can be dealt
with in any way we see fit.
We will never regain a proper perspective on
serious crime unless we accept that we are all capable of vile things because
of our very nature, and that we must take responsibilty for our imperfection,
even though we ourselves individually are not to blame for it and would never
ask for it.
Brian,
I can’t see how a belief in an afterlife makes any difference to
the argument about capital punishment. We are all going to die. Where we go is
beyond our power and in the perspective of eternity we are here for such a
short time that when we go makes little matter. What seems to matter is that
we not only strive to find out what is right and true while we are here, but
also ensure in so far as in us lies, that we do the right thing whenever we
are presented with a choice – which is pretty nearly every minute of every
day.
If we do our best to set up a system of justice that strives to
eliminate mistakes (and we had one until about fifty years ago when the
moderisers got hold of it) then executing murderers is their problem not ours.
But, unlike with Mr Teutonicus’s vengeful approach, it must be done in a
spirit of sadness that one of us has fallen into making the wrong choice and
done something which means that the ultimate penalty is the best we can do for
him.
- August 4, 2012 at 14:16
-
XX We will never regain a proper perspective on serious crime unless we
accept that we are all capable of vile things XX
And if I commited those “vile things” I would expect the law to deal with
me in exactly the same way I have described above.
Criminals are sub-human scum, and do NOT have the right to even be BURIED
in common with law abiding members of the community.
A bit difficult for the anti hanging mob when someone applies the same
rules to themselves, as they spout? NOW where is your “argument”?
(Although, I could eat a bowl of alphebetti spaggheti and SHIT a better
argument than you have put foreward.)
- August 4,
2012 at 15:18
-
Belsay,
I agree we are all going to die, but like paying bills it’s
better to be delayed as long as possible , especially if death means death.
And the good old days of the criminal justice system weren’t all that good. Even in the middle years of the
twentieth century miscarriages of justice took place, despite the ability of
the Home Secretary to amend the sentence. Still, Timothy Evans was later
reburied outside the precincts of Pentonville Prison in consecrated ground
so he was happy at last.
- August 4, 2012 at 19:09
-
I will repeat, for those incapable of following a thread;
XX You don’t execute for first offences. It is possible, in fact it has
happened on NUMEROUS occassions, whereby prisoners have been released to
commit the same offence again, and sometimes even again.
I would also apply the death penalty for ANY consistant criminal, no
matter WHAT the offence. So long as that offence is ABLE to be punished
with more than five years imprisonment on a first conviction. I.e, in
Britain, an “Arrestable offence.” (As opposed to “an offence which has a
power of arrest.”)
By their consistancey, they have shown their unwillingness, inability
to behave like a responsible member of the human race. Therefore they
forfiet that right. XX
-
August 4, 2012 at 12:29
-
There was an element of irony in the “kind gentle …”
Yes it is much
crueller to lock people up for life in these conditions.
If when he passed sentence the judge had said “… and you will be imprisoned
in a place where your life will be a living hell, where the other inmates will
attempt to maim and kill you and, assuming you survive for the whole of your
sentence, you will never know a moment without fear, etc” then at least it
would have the merit of honesty.
I too dislike state killing. But the English common law was not (until
quite recently) imposed by a state from the top, but was a distillation of
what the people thought was right – an expression of natural law whose power
came from a generalised (largely unspoken) popular consent. Neither the state,
nor the Crown executed criminals, but the people, through the application of
their law, with the Crown as the ultimate authority.
That is why English
judges spoke about finding the “true rule” that applied to a given problem
they had to solve. Their job was to express and interpret was the true rule
was, not apply some tyrant or politician’s will.
This has become confused (for various reasons I can’t go into here) with a
top-down system of law imposed by an elite, which was rightly described as
European tyranny against which the English have fought from time to time
(Napoleon) – certainly since the ‘Enlightenment’ – until we caved in without a
shot being fired under Grocer Heath.
The conscience-striken elite that now
imposes its will on the people in all matters of importance tells them that
their instincts are wrong, that they, the elite knows better. So the people
are now left with no recourse but to turn a blind eye when a murderer (of whom
they secretly approve) kills another murderer whom they believe has escaped
justice.
-
August 4, 2012 at 11:16
-
An interesting debate. But am I really “kind, gentle Gildas?” As you point
out yourself, incarceration for these people can be a species of torture. I
perfectly accept that my views are muddled, but could it not be said that this
is the crueller and thus harsher sentence? In fact, I still cannot countenence
the cold blooded killing by the State. I think we must be above that, but on
the other hand for “people” such as this life must mean life!
- August 4, 2012 at 11:15
-
As a College Student – circa 1960 – I attended a ‘Debating Society’ meeting
which was addressed by Sydney Silverman MP [Look him up]
I cannot recall
whether there was a ‘Motion, debated & voted upon’ – or simply an address
by Mr Silverman. I do know that we listened politely as he faced a potentially
hostile audience calmly, and made his points with evident sincerity.
In the
half Century since – which included serving as an Officer in a UK Police Force
during the era when ‘abolition’ was being passed into Law , and certain
supporters of political causes caused lethal explosions in local premises – I
have often wondered about the validity of any “Moral Account Sheet”
Did judicial execution
a) Erroneously “cause” deaths of innocent
suspects? Or;
b) “Prevent” the deaths of potential victims of crime ?
What about the argument that – even Householders, bystanders/ family – or
Police – should be prosecuted & convicted even if they kill in the course
of attempting to prevent serious offences [Exceptions only to be made if it
could be ‘later proved’ the criminal intent was to kill . Not merely to rape,
torture, rob, terrify witnesses – or support a Political Struggle?]
- August 4, 2012 at 12:54
-
You have it wrong. The death sentence should be fror ALL such cases, or
repeated attemopts at such, where the bastard is found guilty.
Defence against such attacks, ie “Housholders”, “By-satnders” etc, should
be ignored as “self defence” in such cases.
HEL! You talk as if these arseholes were HUMAN, or something!
KILL the bastards! We, society, do/es not need them.
-
August 4, 2012 at 10:49
-
Mr Gildas,
One thing I missed is that I think it’s about our society
failing to take full responsibility for dealing with murderers. We incarcerate
them for thirty years, or whatever (at the taxpayer’s expense, even though we
don’t ask the taxpayer whether he wants to pay for that) and we know it is
highly likely that Ahmed, for example, or Huntley, for another example, will
be foully treated by other prisoners, probably beaten up, stabbed, slashed,
have their food pissed in and worse, and in some cases killed. We turn a blind
eye to all this cruelty (as do the warders) because we (and the warders)
either really want it to happen, because we feel they deserve it, or we refuse
to face up to the truth of what results from a prison sentence.
Either way, it’s simply failing to take responsibility for the maintenance
of a system of justice that will command the respect of the people because it
does what the people feel to be just.
You, dear gentle Gildas, might find capital punishment “macabre”, but that
is not a reason for its being wrong. I find killing lambs to eat, or hens once
they’ve finished only one cycle of laying, macabre, even though I eat eggs and
lamb. I am willing to accept that it has to happen because that is the way the
world has been ordered; I may not like it, but it’s the truth.
And execution for murderers is of the same order. It has to happen if you
want a just society, however personally distasteful you find it.
You don’t
imagine judges and juries in days gone by found hanging to be a delightful
experience when they had to do it, but they knew it was necessary for the
proper administration of justice.and were prepared to take responsibility for
doing it.
By the way do not confuse capital punishment with cruelty. I do not agree
with Americans’ vicious use of the death penalty – lethal injection or
whatever. Capital punishment must always be done as humanely as possible. You
are carrying out the correct punishment and your job is to send the convicted
person as quickly and painlessly as you can to the next world. It is not the
function of a system of justice to torture someone to death. Hanging done
right is the kindest quickest method yet devised, and the most public.Justice
should be seen to be done – not behind closed doors, or in the cellars of the
Lubianka (sp?)
Which brings me to lifetimes spent in prison – that is a species of
torture, which in my view results from our failure to be just and act morally
towards the murderer (and of course towards those who have to pay for his
lifetime in prison). People secretly revel in the cruelties inflicted on
murderers (especially of children) in prison, because their revulsion towards
what he has done leads them (quite properly) to expect something awful to
happen in return. But we descend to the same level as the murderer (and maybe
even lower) if we send him to prison for life, knowing that we are condemning
him to a lifetime of torture and worse, condoning by other bad men the doing
to him of the very acts he was convicted of, because good men are not willing
to take responsibility for doing what they know is right and just.
- August 4, 2012 at 10:36
-
Has there ever been a judge with sufficient backbone to give a consecutive
sentence? Surely the rapist merited one?
- August 11, 2012 at 08:54
-
Can a judge even give a consecutive sentence? I dont ever remember a
judge doing that in the UK even for criminals with an appalling list of
crimes.
I`m with the yanks on this one, start dishing out 100 year
stretches for the worst criminals with no chance of parole ever.
And
prisons need to be austere and grim places,where the inmates have to work
for their food,like the prison farm system they use in the US.
Probably
be the first real work some of them will have done in their whole lives.
-
August 3, 2012 at 21:56
-
Mr Gildas,
You believe in God I presume? As the ultimate judge of men?
Surely by refusing to execute murderers we are usurping His function and
setting ourselves up in His place?
Leaving to one side the risk of mistakes, which I admit has increased since
the decline in the quality of juries (which I think is a consequence of the
abolition of the death penalty) what is wrong with hanging murderers?
A
system of justice that has as its ultimate punishment the capital penalty
commands the respect of the people (and the police, lawyers and above all the
accused and the witnesses). Juries would be less willing to send an accused to
the gallows unless they were certain and the police less willing to fit people
up if they knew the consequence would be their hanging.
And justice demands execution for certain crimes. It is illogical to long
for justice and reject capital punishment.It is simply a contradiction in
terms. We were (collectively) willing to countenance the hanging of Saddam
Hussein (even though we did not actually prove he had murdered anyone) and yet
we balk at doing the same thing to people who are clearly guilty of foul
murder in our own communities.
Justice has manifestly not been done in the Ahmed and Stapleton cases and
everyone, including you, is left feeling that something is missing, something
unfinished.
You may not like it, but the truth is that we must have capital
punishment otherwise we have no justice.
-
August 4, 2012 at 06:23
-
Interesting Belsay, but I am still opposed to capital punishment. I find
the idea macabre. Lock them up and throw away the key, for sure, but oddly,
however much all these scumbags might desereve it, I would still say no.
- August 4,
2012 at 11:58
-
Mr Belsay,
I believe that innocent people who are executed stay dead.
If you can prove beyond reasonable doubt the existence of an afterlife to
provide some compensation for the miscarriage of justice against
state-murdered citizens, then I will support capital punishment.
- August 4, 2012 at 12:57
-
I would rather see two dead “innocent”, than one escaped “guilty”.
- August
4, 2012 at 14:58
-
So that would be you plus guest? Why not three?
- August 3, 2012 at 20:13
-
In my book, the deliberate and unnecessary taking of another human life is
the ultimate crime – ‘deliberate’ and ‘unnecessary’ are key adjectives.
Circumstances of self-defence or even mercy-killing can qualify as
‘necessary’, those where the death was an accidental or incidental bi-product
can qualify as non-deliberate. The rest are inexcusable.
But the death penalty ? Were I to have faith in the justice system never to
deliver an incorrect verdict, I could be persuaded, but the idea that a single
innocent person may be executed due to administrative incompetence, or worse,
is simply not acceptable. Next time, it could be me, or you.
I have no problem with offering convicted killers the option of execution
(it is bizarre that Ian Brady currently wants to die but ‘the system’ won’t
let him), I also have no problem with ‘whole of life sentences’ in dire
conditions, but until I can be convinced that trial errors are impossible, I’m
afraid I’ll remain a leftie do-gooder on the gallows topic.
- August 3, 2012 at 23:04
-
XX I could be persuaded, but the idea that a single innocent person may
be executed due to administrative incompetence, or worse, is simply not
acceptable.XX
You don’t execute for first offences. It is possible, in fact it has
happened on NUMEROUS occassions, whereby prisoners have been released to
commit the same offence again, and sometimes even again.
I would also apply the death penalty for ANY consistant criminal, no
matter WHAT the offence. So long as that offence is ABLE to be punished with
more than five years imprisonment on a first conviction. I.e, in Britain, an
“Arrestable offence.” (As opposed to “an offence which has a power of
arrest.”)
By their consistancey, they have shown their unwillingness, inability to
behave like a responsible member of the human race. Therefore they forfiet
that right.
- August 3, 2012 at 19:22
-
“The parents of the verminous Stapleton stayed away from the trial”
Has Jeremy Kyle identified the sperm donor* then?
* I decline to use the word ‘father’
- August 3, 2012 at 19:02
-
Gildas, you have that certain way of putting things with which the majority
of the people of these islands would not disagree, given the chance to say so.
The case of poor Bidve and his family highlights the very problem.
-
August 3, 2012 at 19:27
-
Thank you Wassname. It is interesting because lurking in this is a
strongly anti racist theme. I am appalled by the “cultural values” people
like the Ahmeds. Behaviour which would disgrace 12th centry Afghanistan. And
on the other hand, we have a different problem in the vacuous and verminous
likes of Stapleton. Who will defend us from the barbarian?
-
August 3, 2012 at 22:34
-
Perhaps what it comes down to is that the shallow end of the gene pool
knows no barriers of race, creed or colour. There are also more complex
matters of culture, our own and others, that exacerbate the problems.
- August 3, 2012 at 18:46
-
Also, spare a compassionate thought for all the police, doctors, barristers
and all others involved in these shocking cases. It must be very difficult,
heroic even, to deal with the degrading effects of association with such
scum.
- August 3, 2012 at 18:31
-
Amen.
- August 3,
2012 at 18:28
-
“Nevertheless, there is a family with honour.”
/applause
- August 3, 2012 at 18:20
-
Your article, if not the Ahmeds themselves suggest a solution
Not just capital punishment, but capital punishment by plastic bag
suffocation. Some of these individuals are such remorseless pieces of shit
that they deserve nothing less than a slow and painful death. It offends me to
know that my taxes will be spent on B&B for such people for the rest of
thier lives. They don’t deserve it.
But in my view not just that, but film it and broadcast it too. And as each
them feels the gasping pain of thier final breaths, and thier eyes bulge at
the very end, place a subtitle on the pictures to others : “Look and see –
this is what will happen to you if you kill people, you bastards”
- August 3, 2012 at 19:56
-
I think we should re-instate the Roman circus myself.
” Here you go Mr
rapist fuck, those 12 women over there are just for you, whats that? They’ve
all got swords and axes and you’ve got sod all? That’s really sad isn’t it.
Bye now” *sounds of a gate closing, roars of the crowd, and some very loud
and drawn out screams*
-
August 4, 2012 at 14:46
-
Italians do nice pizza as well. A drop of chianti, Roman Circus and a
pizza? Whats not to like
Maybe tear em apart with Moto Guzzis as
well?
- August 5, 2012 at 15:56
-
Gets my vote, though I’m not sure most of these scrotes would rate
Guzzis; perhaps use clapped out Lambrettas for the oiks and save the
Guzzis for child molesters and rapists.
- August 3,
2012 at 18:16
-
Isn’t expecting immigrants to integrate into British society and adopt its
positive values incompatible with Libertarianism?
- August 3,
2012 at 18:29
-
Expecting them to obey the law isn’t. Is it?
-
August 4, 2012 at 14:43
-
Well said JuliaM— its British Law and it applies to everyone in Britain
( except the BBC, Politicians, the wealthy and priveleged
)
- August 13, 2012 at 00:39
-
“and it applies to everyone in Britain ( except the BBC, Politicians,
the wealthy and priveleged )” and certain immigrants with their own
culture and laws, but British Law is now irrelevant as it is trumped
time and again by European Law.
-
August 3, 2012 at 17:45
-
Regular posters will know I have a serious dislike of muslims, based on my
years living and working in muslim countries.
I also have a very dear
muslim lady friend, a well educated , intelligent lady. When she was young she
had an arranged marriage , to an older man from her community, as is
normal.
It was not a happy marriage and when she could no longer stand
being with him , she sought a divorce. She was forced to leave her only child,
a young son, with his family and to this day, is denied any contact with him.
A terrible thing to happen to any woman.
Without wishing to go off on a
rant, anyone thinking that the majority of muslims are going to integrate into
British society, is away with the faries.
- August 3, 2012 at 21:41
-
Some years ago I had the Farnham Castle Arab culture
indoctrination
With a few years under my belt, I guess I’d say let’s keep
our noses out of what they do to each other in foreign parts, but no excuses
when on our patch.
I don’t believe in ethnic minorities, you’re either a
native or you’re a guest.
Guests have obligations to the host. ( I also
believe the same applies to us when visiting abroad, even if it is only a
short break in mainland Europe.)
Our tolerance is not an invitation for
abuse.
- August 3, 2012 at 17:06
-
These people really don’t have place among normal people.
The death
sentence is probably no deterrent, but is that even relevant? I suspect little
of our justice system is much more than token revenge anyway, so let’s just
simply accept that certain offences attract certain sanctions.
The real
problem for me is thought of employing a person prepared to execute someone in
cold blood for money. Oddly, I just can’t quite see it the same as someone
firing a missile or dropping a bomb on a target knowing there will be
‘collateral damage’.
Perhaps we could offer the option and means for
suicide to suitable prisoners as an alternative to permanent
imprisonment?
Housekeeping the human race is never going to be very nice is
it?
- August 3, 2012 at 19:30
-
XX The death sentence is probably no deterrent, but is that even
relevant? XX
As I said above totaly NOT relevant. IF it acts as a deterent, then that
is a usefull side effect. The idea behind the death sentence IS that a
rabid, dangerous, and out of control sub human is eradicated from being any
further danger to society.
- August 4, 2012 at 06:52
-
Agreed. That is all the death penalty should be for. Not for vengeance,
or justice, not as deterrent or example, but simply to edit the monsters
from our midst. Those who cannot tell the difference between right and
wrong, and furthermore, do not care.
-
August 3, 2012 at 16:59
-
You are both quite right Thor2H and Mudplugger – I was aware of that but
such is my rage and disgust at these vile people I was venting, not thinking.
I completely agree that these are concurrent sentences. I should have pointed
that out.
I am not sure what effect that has on minimum release. My
understanding is that half the stated sentence is a norm, which in this case I
think is absurd.
- August 3, 2012 at 16:30
-
@ Gildas – – Shabir Ahmed didn’t get ‘an extra 22 years ‘ He was sentenced
to 22 years concurrent with the 19 year term previously imposed.
[And – according to BBC News – he had to be ‘taken down’ on orders of the
Judge – for persistently interrupting the sentencing and abusing the Police
and reporters in the Court.]
I lack sufficient information to calculate his ‘earliest date for release
on Licence’ ?
-
August 3, 2012 at 16:28
-
XX There are times when I wish I could change my views on capital
punishment, and this is one of them……………
I suspect that there is no point. One can no more “understand” a killer
like Stapleton than one can “understand” a rabid dog. XX
And THAT is why I support the death penalty. You are dealing with rabid
dogs, not humans, and rabid dogs are shot, gassed, lethaly injected, or
whatever.
IF the death penalty deters, that is only a usefull side line. The purpose
is not to teach Timmy the poodle not to get rabies by killing off Fido the
rabid rottie, it is to remove a dangerous, and out of control menace. Exactly
in the same way as execution should be seen.
-
August 3, 2012 at 16:07
-
Error: the beast who was serially raping a girm girl got an extra 22 years
not 30, for 30 counts of rape. I do apologise, I was emoting. I wouldn’t want
to uspet or defame the “gentleman” concerned
-
August 3, 2012 at 16:26
-
Of course, he didn’t actually get an extra 22 years – he got 22 years to
be served concurrently with 19 he already had, so those ‘extra’ 22 years
suddenly morph into 3 years max (or 18 months in practice). That’s the true
penalty for at least 30 rapes of a vulnerable young girl.
Why do we condone concurrent sentences when the offences themselves are
consecutive ?
- August
3, 2012 at 18:03
-
He will probably serve 2/3 of the 22 year sentence in prison and will be on
licence for the remainder. That’s fifteen years inside as a nonce,
which will mean he may come out feeling a lot older than 74.Plus he’s
probably on the sex offenders register for life. His South Asian ancestry
makes him significantly more prone to heart and kidney disease.
- August 9, 2012 at 07:57
-
Crap! You mean I have to pay for his health care too.
-
August 3, 2012 at 15:59
-
Inote the mother needed an interpreter even thoughshe came to England
beforehere daughter was born. Her daughter died age 17 some 10 years ago!
-
August 3, 2012 at 16:01
-
Sorry, new computer and not used to space bar yet. Note to self – no
matter how incensed, proof read before pressing submit.
{ 59 comments }