[Archived] Parents Warn Your Kids!

[blue phil]

Not really , jim .

I base my suspicions on the fact that this Labour government brought in special laws to cater for so called hate crimes against specific groups based on race and religion*

When you consider that all crimes are hateful to a certain extent and that existing laws already cover these crimes , you have to wonder why the government was so intent on highlighting these crimes above others . It could only be an attempt to drum into the public and the judiciary that they are somehow worse than other such similar crimes .

For example a mugging against a person can be highlighted in law and deemed a "racial" crime . A mugging against a little old lady is just your run of the mill mugging . Why is one deemed different to the other ? They were both illegal in the first place so why change the law needlessly unless one is to be viewed as more serious than the other ?

The law should apply equally to all ; bracketing people into sub groups based on race and sexuality and religion creates more trouble than ity solves.

(Not sure if the religion laws ever reached the statute book but the intention was there ...)

[Anti Euro Smiths Fan]

What a wicked sick evil barsteward.

I wonder if, in 20 years time, this lowlife scumbag will be able to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights and say that it's an "infringement of his human rights" to be jailed for 35 years.

On a slightly different note, does anyone really want to legalise drugs after reading THIS

[Flopsy]

People do lots of disgustingly vile things on Alcohol Smithy, but dont let that get in the way. also

He must have been on drugs

isnt the same as He was on drugs.

anyway not wishing to make light of the horrible case, but does that bloke just not look like a scumbag anyway? Look at the eyes and the ears.

Edited July 3, 2007 by Flopsy

[adopted scouser]

People do lots of disgustingly vile things on Alcohol Smithy, but dont let that get in the way.

How the hell did you get this moderating gig with such stupid, puerile comments like that ?

[broadsword]

Let the sick ****s burn!

[Flopsy]

What's wrong with my statement Scouse, please do tell. Why is it purile? Or is it more purile to do what Smithy does again and again? The guy did something horrible and is being punished for it. Blaming it on the possibility that he was on drugs is pathetic

People do bad things on drugs, the same things that they get up to on alcohol.

But Smithy has to start the "oh legalising drugs is so wrong lark" when the story gives someone's opinion on why their mentaly sick relative did something. "oh it must have been the drugs" No, its your brother is a mentally sick killer

Edited July 3, 2007 by Flopsy

[adopted scouser]

What's wrong with my statement Scouse, please do tell.

Maybe I read it it incorrectly, but the inference was this offence could be akin to other offences where alcohol was a contributory factor.

[Flopsy]

Its still not purile, my statement was that people do extreamly bad things with the aid of alcohol not just drugs.

Worse, people do them sober

[tucker]

It was a ludicrous statement Flopsy.

I suggest you remove the spade from your hands.

[Flopsy]

oh god here we go again.

People do these types of things on alcohol as well as other drugs. Should we ban alcohol? That was my point. Can that be recognised.

also whats worse is that people rape and murder others (including children) without the aid of drugs and alcohol.

[broadsword]

Surely the fact that he was drunk is incidental?

Or, it has just occurred to me that he might've needed drink to act on his urges. But those urges would've been there before anyway (he had disgusting stuff on his PC remember).

But I would say drink or no drink, just a matter of time.

Just my opinion.

[Flopsy]

that was my point.

Beer or no beer, drugs or no drugs

[American]

It was a ludicrous statement Flopsy.

I suggest you remove the spade from your hands.

Better not use words like that, you'll get labeled a racist....

[Rovermatt]

I bet you he doesn't.

Edited July 3, 2007 by Rovermatt

[blue phil]

that was my point.

Beer or no beer, drugs or no drugs

You're probably right , Flopsy , that this bloke had probably been harbouring his urges for years .

However alcohol has always been legal and is never going to be illegal - (unless my worst fears for the future of this nation come true :ph34r:) . There is no logic IMO to legalise hard drugs simply because another form of intoxication is already legal - there's enough crime being committed by drunks to start with !

As for this waste of human life .......he'll be in his mid 50's when he comes out . If the human rights brigade have their way it'll be sooner . He'll still have his urges and kids will still be at risk . It's time we put such scum to death and started to put the interests of our kids first and foremost .

[Flopsy]

Better not use words like that, you'll get labeled a racist....

spade, ha no I use a JCB thanks, much more efficient, and bigger holes

[Anti Euro Smiths Fan]

Good grief - vicar is still being paid by the church after being jailed for sex offences

The Church of England says: "We have to follow the law" - in that case surely the law needs to be changed so that money doesn't continue to be paid once a man is jailed for these type of offences.

[stuwilky]

Good grief - vicar is still being paid by the church after being jailed for sex offences

The Church of England says: "We have to follow the law" - in that case surely the law needs to be changed so that money doesn't continue to be paid once a man is jailed for these type of offences.

This really winds me up.

Its a piece of cake to sack someone, from virtually any position, as long as you follow statutory procedures. Which should take a maximum of 14 days, followed by an appeal, so a further 7 days.

I hate it further when employers blame red tape for their own incompetence. If only they hadnt changed the rules so that vicars couldnt seek recompense for "unfair dismissal" et al as they were employed by God, who couldnt arrange representation!

[Anti Euro Smiths Fan]

Judges who are out of touch....

Judge Julian Hall gave a two-year sentence to a window cleaner who raped a girl of 10 in a park. Keith Fenn, a 24-year-old window cleaner from Oxfordshire, could be free in just a few weeks though after he served eight months in prison awaiting sentence. He could have been jailed for life, but the judge said that the girl had dressed provocatively, had worn a frilly bra and looked older than 10.

Judge Julian Hall also hit the headlines earlier this year when he sentenced a 71-year-old sex offender to a fine of just £250 for putting his hand down the knickers of a six-year-old girl. "If it buys her a nice new bike, that's the sort of thing that might cheer her up," said the judge.

The message from Judge Hall seems to be that it's okay to put your hand down a six-year-old girl's pants as long as you buy her a bike afterwards. Judges like Julian Hall should be told they are completely out of touch.

"Award-winning actor downloaded pre-teen hardcore porn."

Actor Chris Langham, who won a Bafta for his performance in the BBC series "The Thick of It", has admitted in court to downloading clips of child porn described in court as Grade 5 - meaning the most serious, extreme and sadistic form of child porn, involving young pre-teen girls. The clips featured girls as young as seven being raped and tortured.

Langham claimed that he didn't commit a crime, because he was downloading the clips for "research" - to find out about sex offenders for a BBC series called 'Help'. But surely there is no acting job in the world which justifies watching seven-year-old girls being raped and tortured. It is completely warped and there is no justification at all for it. (The producers and fellow actors of 'Help' knew nothing at all about Langham downloading the clips.)

I hope personally that the jury does not believe Langham's dodgy excuses and is not influenced by the fact that he's a celebrity on TV. Unfortunately, I suspect that in certain cases some jurors are influenced by celebrities, giving them the benefit of the doubt.

As the prosecution said in the trial: "If you deliberately download these type of images, you are guilty of an offence. It is no defence to say that you are doing it for research."

The prosecution described Langham's excuse as a "spurious explanation". It will soon be up to the jury to decide whether or not Langham is guilty.

Link: Jurors in Langham's trial see distressing images

[Anti Euro Smiths Fan]

Bafta award-winning actor Chris Langham found guilty of downloading child porn.

As Ken Goss of the Crown Prosecution Service said: "They were horrific images, still and video clips, of children being sexually abused. Chris Langham actively searched for those images."

I think the jury have reached the right verdict on those charges.

[Anti Euro Smiths Fan]

Sometimes it's not just the blokes our kids need to be careful of....

[Anti Euro Smiths Fan]

Sir Jimmy Savile "extremely distressed" at being linked to Jersey care home.

It's an awful horrific business that's been discovered in Jersey and I have some sympathy for Jimmy Savile on this. He might be an eccentric character - but that doesn't mean to say that he's a child abuser. He's been the subject of a bit of gossip and innuendo over the years, but there's no evidence to suggest that Jimmy has ever been guilty of any wrongdoing.

Unfortunately though we live in a society where a few people do point fingers and throw stones, sometimes without justification, and after this photo from 38 years ago in Jersey has come to light, there may be some people putting two and two together and making his life uncomfortable with derogatory remarks.

A dark cloud is hanging over Jersey. It's now being questioned whether the island's authorities turned a blind eye to the abuse and the Deputy police chief who is investigating the crimes says: "Part of the inquiry will be the fact that a lot of the victims tried to report their assaults but for some reason or another they were not dealt with properly."

One suspect in the case is reported to be a leading member of Jersey's political establishment and the chairman of several committees, who died in 1974.

[colin]

Unfortunately though we live in a society where a few people do point fingers and throw stones, sometimes without justification,

Indeed we do. It's a bit sad really.

5 out of the last 6 posts just about sums it up.

[broadsword]

That Sun "article" about Jimmy Saville is absolutely outrageous, I'd be doing my nut if I was Jim.

They're basically accusing him of having something to hide.

I wouldn't wipe my ass with that poxy rag.

[Flopsy]

I always thought Bergerac was hiding something.

Seriously, Sir Jimmy, who is probably the first to admit it, is a tad eccentric, but a child abuser? Nah, it would get in the way of the hero worship of his mother.

That article must open the SUN up for insinuating that he's a child abuser.

But what do you expect, there's such a mass hysteria about paedophillia, that any male working or associated with children, including male teachers are all suspected of being paedo's, and therefore dont bother putting themselves in that position and therefore more and more boys grow up with no male role models who arent celebs.