Question Time Tonight

[billybong]

Nice ending Will Self said it... both parties will be cutting all departments by fourteen to twenty four percent in real terms?

And if so that will only touch the tip of the waste.

[shindigger]

You don't think so, no ?

So if you got into a fight with someone and were found to have used excessive force or to have deliberately provoked a violent occurence, you don't think you could be put away for it ?

But, not only has this 'being' carried out such a heinous crime previously, which involved gratuitous violence and torture as a 10 yr old boy, but having being given the chance to change as an adult, is still prone to violence ?

Should have put them both down after the conviction. 10 year olds know that torturing a 2 year old kid to death is not "right".

I dunno.

Look at any town centre on a friday night. Fights aplenty. None of em get jailed.

Im assuming that whoever he got in to a fight with, didnt know his past.

If that is so, then theres no more reason to bang him up than any other friday night, pissed up pugilist.

Do you read the Sun by any chance?

Try not to label me as some sort of pacifist please.

Im quite clear that the perpetrators of this crime should still be in jail, their time being put to constructive endeavour to benefit anyone on the other side of the wall.

Show me any baying crowd, ill show you a bunch of liars, cheats, retards, hypocrites, thieves, pervs and nonces.

[SNACR]

I don't see why it matters what the breach is for. What difference would knowing make to us? But it's out now anyway. He was in a fight at work, and has drug offences:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article7049248.ece

Yes, I am mystified by the need to know. The Bulger case seems to always inflame a disproportionate interest and an unwholesome side of the British public. Mentally ill people amongst society on 'care in the community' programmes statistically pose far greater threat but don't provoke anywhere near the interest level. I suspect the abnormal interest is on some deep down level prurient. A mixture of denial that people, especially children, can commit such a vile evil crime and guilt that all parents know there have been many times when they haven't watched over their children as vigilantly as they perhaps should (similar with both the Payne and McCann cases).

You don't think so, no ?

So if you got into a fight with someone and were found to have used excessive force or to have deliberately provoked a violent occurence, you don't think you could be put away for it ?

But, not only has this 'being' carried out such a heinous crime previously, which involved gratuitous violence and torture as a 10 yr old boy, but having being given the chance to change as an adult, is still prone to violence ?

Should have put them both down after the conviction. 10 year olds know that torturing a 2 year old kid to death is not "right".

You can either have a civilised society that doesn't thrust ultimate criminal responsibility on young children, or not. You can't just pick and choose based on if they've done something society collectively views as very evil.

If it was some 15 year olds who've mugged and killed a pensioner there's a liberal mentality that the teenager is a victim of society and socially deprived background. When 10 year olds, fed a diet of video nasties by neglectful parents, kill a much younger child society suddenly turns round and demands they accept adult resposibility. I don't believe that criminals are victims and I believe criminals should be punished harshly in a manner that deters reoffending but, only when they are of an age that they will understand this.

Society demands some sort of peculiar exorcism on this pair and seeks to deny them any rehabilitation but it leads to a dark place and a medieval idea that children can be born evil - which no right-minded person should believe

[SNACR]

I dunno.

Look at any town centre on a friday night. Fights aplenty. None of em get jailed.

Im assuming that whoever he got in to a fight with, didnt know his past.

If that is so, then theres no more reason to bang him up than any other friday night, pissed up pugilist.

Do you read the Sun by any chance?

Try not to label me as some sort of pacifist please.

Im quite clear that the perpetrators of this crime should still be in jail, their time being put to constructive endeavour to benefit anyone on the other side of the wall.

Show me any baying crowd, ill show you a bunch of liars, cheats, retards, hypocrites, thieves, pervs and nonces.

Agree entirely - misdirection personified

'Yeah, if I shout 'burn paedos' really, really loudly in a crowd no-one will ever guess what my hard-disk is full of'

[The Spaniard]

Show me any baying crowd, ill show you a bunch of liars, cheats, retards, hypocrites, thieves, pervs and nonces.

Have you seen PM's questions on TV?

[Lone_Twin]

Agree entirely - misdirection personified

'Yeah, if I shout 'burn paedos' really, really loudly in a crowd no-one will ever guess what my hard-disk is full of'

I was half watching masterchef the other night (the wife likes it) while on HPC and one of the contenstants was constantly refered to as "Childrens Doctor Paul*".

Presumably they couldnt use the perfecly adequate title of paediatrician because either people would be too think to understand or cause those that thought they did to hunt down the aspiring cook and string him up by the balls "for touching them poor kidz".

I dispair. When did this country become so stupid?

*I can't recall what his name was.

[too soon to buy?]

If you had a 2 year old child and a 27 year old living next door to you who, when he was 10, killed a 2 year old child - would you be happy not knowing who he was and what he once did?

If you had anyone living next door to you who had murdered - wouldn't you want to know the sort of person you had as a neighbour?

Whilst appreciating the impossible questions posed by this tragedy, it seems to me that the law works in a way that leans too far in the direction of the perpetrators of crimes.

What really worries me most is trust. Do I trust the judgement of the people who decided when the murderers turned 18 to release them? They were released after an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. And, as far as I know, they were both released at the same time. This indicates they were released on a technicality - if they were released after a long and careful evaluation of their rehabilitation, it would be a staggering coincidence if they were both released at the same time.

I agree with the sentiment of your post, i.e. that the justice system does seem to work hard at protecting the rights of criminals and I worry about who they really are interested in looking after sometimes. However, I still don't see how releasing the details of the parole breach is in the public interest.

I personally, would love to know the reasons, not least because I'd like to know, firstly, how he turned out and secondly if he lives near me, but to be honest, neither of these reasons give me a right to know about his parole breach!

As for the "next door neighbour" point - i certainly would not like to live next door to a murderer, but then again, have any of us actually asked our neighbours if they have committed a murder or do you just wait for them to breach parole and read about it in the Mirror?!! ;-)

Edited March 5, 2010 by too soon to buy?

[miko]

Yes, I am mystified by the need to know. The Bulger case seems to always inflame a disproportionate interest and an unwholesome side of the British public. Mentally ill people amongst society on 'care in the community' programmes statistically pose far greater threat but don't provoke anywhere near the interest level. I suspect the abnormal interest is on some deep down level prurient. A mixture of denial that people, especially children, can commit such a vile evil crime and guilt that all parents know there have been many times when they haven't watched over their children as vigilantly as they perhaps should (similar with both the Payne and McCann cases).

You can either have a civilised society that doesn't thrust ultimate criminal responsibility on young children, or not. You can't just pick and choose based on if they've done something society collectively views as very evil.

If it was some 15 year olds who've mugged and killed a pensioner there's a liberal mentality that the teenager is a victim of society and socially deprived background. When 10 year olds, fed a diet of video nasties by neglectful parents, kill a much younger child society suddenly turns round and demands they accept adult resposibility. I don't believe that criminals are victims and I believe criminals should be punished harshly in a manner that deters reoffending but, only when they are of an age that they will understand this.

Society demands some sort of peculiar exorcism on this pair and seeks to deny them any rehabilitation but it leads to a dark place and a medieval idea that children can be born evil - which no right-minded person should believe

Yes but by the time of his recent indiscretions , he knew what he was doing and how barbaric what he did at 10 years old was. After all the money spent on rehabilitation and training him , after all the help that has been dirceted towards him he is still unable to act in an adult civilised way and therefore society has a right to what you call some sort of peculiar exorcism . It is he that has denied the rehabilitation offered to him , and at 27 has to shoulder the responsibility for his actions now .

Thankfully these crimes of childern killing children are very very rare , but quite frankly i won't be loosing any sleep over his future .

Whatever happens to him , does not make us a civilised or uncivilised society , and will not send society to a dark place with medieval idears that children can be born evil , no one has suggested that either of these boys were born evil. But ten year old's do know right from wrong and that it is evil to kill.

[Lone_Twin]

Yes but by the time of his recent indiscretions , he knew what he was doing and how barbaric what he did at 10 years old was. After all the money spent on rehabilitation and training him , after all the help that has been dirceted towards him he is still unable to act in an adult civilised way and therefore society has a right to what you call some sort of peculiar exorcism . It is he that has denied the rehabilitation offered to him , and at 27 has to shoulder the responsibility for his actions now .

....

Just on this point, what kind of adult do you expect to get from a childhood spent in prison?

Not saying he didnt need to be there but the idea that somehow a morally oriented and functional member of society would stroll out of th gates one day is bloody stupid.

This person will be in and out of prison for the rest of his life.

[SNACR]

Yes but by the time of his recent indiscretions , he knew what he was doing and how barbaric what he did at 10 years old was. After all the money spent on rehabilitation and training him , after all the help that has been dirceted towards him he is still unable to act in an adult civilised way and therefore society has a right to what you call some sort of peculiar exorcism . It is he that has denied the rehabilitation offered to him , and at 27 has to shoulder the responsibility for his actions now .

Thankfully these crimes of childern killing children are very very rare , but quite frankly i won't be loosing any sleep over his future .

Whatever happens to him , does not make us a civilised or uncivilised society , and will not send society to a dark place with medieval idears that children can be born evil , no one has suggested that either of these boys were born evil. But ten year old's do know right from wrong and that it is evil to kill.

No, he should be tried as an adult under his new identity for assaulting a colleague at work. If we had a decent justice system he would be punished accordingly. If his recidivism became worryingly high and he was a threat to society a decent criminal justice system would not allow him out on parole. There is no legitimate justification, I can see, of why the victims family or the general public should be apprised of this.

To make children criminally responsible on a pick and mix court of public opinion basis is not a sound and rigid legal system. Unfortunately, it's inevitable that a sound and rigid legal system will occasionally give you results you don't like.

It's not solely the issue of whether the child knew right from wrong proving it satisfactorily could be very difficult and will inevitably vary with upbringing. The other issue is mens rea, or criminal intent, which is again difficult with children as you would have to prove they fully understood the consequences of their actions. It is not possible to peer into their minds and know what they were or weren't thinking or what values of right and wrong they held.

[miko]

Just on this point, what kind of adult do you expect to get from a childhood spent in prison?

Not saying he didnt need to be there but the idea that somehow a morally oriented and functional member of society would stroll out of th gates one day is bloody stupid.

This person will be in and out of prison for the rest of his life.

He did not spend his childhood in Prison !!

Did you not know that he was sent to one of the best units for distruptive children you can go to and had the best therapy and help avaliable . Others that have left this unit including another child killer Mary Bell have become sucsessful morally oriented and functional members of society .

Does that answer your point ?

[Tiger Woods?]

If you had a 2 year old child and a 27 year old living next door to you who, when he was 10, killed a 2 year old child - would you be happy not knowing who he was and what he once did?

I'd also be concerned about all the people who killed small fluffy animals at the age of 10 too, as it is a good indication of sociopathy. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of thousands of sociopaths in Britain. Although I think the Bulger crime indicates that one of these two boys has sociopathic tendencies (I suspect the other was a follower) there are many others with a similar mindset not under the same sword of Damocles.

At some stage you have to give someone a chance of being rehabilitated. I don't think a scuffle at work or drugs possession is the sort of thing that should put one of these people back into prison. It's a completely different sort of crime.

Having said that, the world would be a lot happier place if all the sociopaths were put on their own ring fenced island to get on with imparting misery to each other instead of everyone else.

[miko]

No, he should be tried as an adult under his new identity for assaulting a colleague at work. If we had a decent justice system he would be punished accordingly. If his recidivism became worryingly high and he was a threat to society a decent criminal justice system would not allow him out on parole. There is no legitimate justification, I can see, of why the victims family or the general public should be apprised of this.

To make children criminally responsible on a pick and mix court of public opinion basis is not a sound and rigid legal system. Unfortunately, it's inevitable that a sound and rigid legal system will occasionally give you results you don't like.

It's not solely the issue of whether the child knew right from wrong proving it satisfactorily could be very difficult and will inevitably vary with upbringing. The other issue is mens rea, or criminal intent, which is again difficult with children as you would have to prove they fully understood the consequences of their actions. It is not possible to peer into their minds and know what they were or weren't thinking or what values of right and wrong they held.

At ten years old unless mentally retarded children know that if you kidnapp another child drag him 2.5 miles along a street then hit him with bricks and metal poles before leaving his body on a railway line , that that is wrong and evil .

[miko]

I'd also be concerned about all the people who killed small fluffy animals at the age of 10 too, as it is a good indication of sociopathy. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of thousands of sociopaths in Britain. Although I think the Bulger crime indicates that one of these two boys has sociopathic tendencies (I suspect the other was a follower) there are many others with a similar mindset not under the same sword of Damocles.

At some stage you have to give someone a chance of being rehabilitated. I don't think a scuffle at work or drugs possession is the sort of thing that should put one of these people back into prison. It's a completely different sort of crime.

Having said that, the world would be a lot happier place if all the sociopaths were put on their own ring fenced island to get on with imparting misery to each other instead of everyone else.

But how many of those who killed small fluffy animals at the age of ten have gone on to kill humans?

[Tiger Woods?]

Yes, I am mystified by the need to know. The Bulger case seems to always inflame a disproportionate interest and an unwholesome side of the British public. Mentally ill people amongst society on 'care in the community' programmes statistically pose far greater threat but don't provoke anywhere near the interest level. I suspect the abnormal interest is on some deep down level prurient. A mixture of denial that people, especially children, can commit such a vile evil crime and guilt that all parents know there have been many times when they haven't watched over their children as vigilantly as they perhaps should (similar with both the Payne and McCann cases).

Spot on. There is a reason totalitarian dictators love getting their mitts on children as early as possible. It is because they are capable of doing heinous things. The reason there are armies of children in central Africa maiming and slaughtering adults is because adults are more resistant to doing such things. Children are to a greater or lesser extent nasty, evil, narcissistic little blighters who don't have a fully developed moral sense, which should be self evident to anyone who spent any time in school, i.e. almost everyone. People who think otherwise deserve to be snitched on to the UK Stasi by their own offspring.

[Tiger Woods?]

But how many of those who killed small fluffy animals at the age of ten have gone on to kill humans?

How many of those who have killed humans as children have gone on to kill as adults?

[SNACR]

At ten years old unless mentally retarded children know that if you kidnapp another child drag him 2.5 miles along a street then hit him with bricks and metal poles before leaving his body on a railway line , that that is wrong and evil .

But does hanging them/locking them up and throwing the key deter any other ten year old children from ever doing the same thing, leave the mother of the child not constantly haunted by what if she hadn't looked away for so long, or have any other postive outcome for anyone else involved or the rest of society whatsoever? Apart from allowing us to block out, what we all really know, that for all of humanity, beneath a very thin veneer of civilisation, can lie a tendency to barbaric behaviour in certain circumstances.

[miko]

How many of those who have killed humans as children have gone on to kill as adults?

Only guessing , but very few , however what has that got to do with what we are talking about .

You have lost me

[Never Going To Buy !]

I dunno.

Look at any town centre on a friday night. Fights aplenty. None of em get jailed.

Im assuming that whoever he got in to a fight with, didnt know his past.

If that is so, then theres no more reason to bang him up than any other friday night, pissed up pugilist.

Do you read the Sun by any chance?

Try not to label me as some sort of pacifist please.

Im quite clear that the perpetrators of this crime should still be in jail, their time being put to constructive endeavour to benefit anyone on the other side of the wall.

Show me any baying crowd, ill show you a bunch of liars, cheats, retards, hypocrites, thieves, pervs and nonces.

Lol. Is that suppsed to be an insult ?

You're wrong when you suggest that people fighting do not get locked up. To say categorically that "none of 'em get jailed" is wrong. If there is a serious enough assault then people will do time. I've seen it first hand. That was all I was trying to say.

Now, if someone of his background is involved in violence then there is no other choice but to bang him up. I agree with your last points though.

[miko]

But does hanging them/locking them up and throwing the key deter any other ten year old children from ever doing the same thing, leave the mother of the child not constantly haunted by what if she hadn't looked away for so long, or have any other postive outcome for anyone else involved or the rest of society whatsoever? Apart from allowing us to block out, what we all really know, that for all of humanity, beneath a very thin veneer of civilisation, can lie a tendency to barbaric behaviour in certain circumstances.

Does it stop other 10 year old's killing ? There must be some detterent in it , if we had let these two walk free after a slap on the wrist when they committed the crime would that stop other ten year old's killing ?

The case today has nothing to do with him at ten , but at 27 ,

Locking him up now and throwing away the key does have a positive outcome for society :- Last year 79 prisoners on life licencens were recalled to prison for breatches of their parole out of 1,400 who are out in the community . So the threat of being recalled must play an important part in life prisoners not reoffending , which is positive for society as a whole..

[Tiger Woods?]

Only guessing , but very few , however what has that got to do with what we are talking about .

You have lost me

You were the one who brought up that particular line of reasoning:

But how many of those who killed small fluffy animals at the age of ten have gone on to kill humans?

[miko]

You were the one who brought up that particular line of reasoning:

No you said you worried about all ten year old who killed fluffy animals and i said but how many of them went on to kill humans ?

what is you point ?

[Tiger Woods?]

delete double post

Edited March 5, 2010 by D'oh

[Tiger Woods?]

No you said you worried about all ten year old who killed fluffy animals and i said but how many of them went on to kill humans ?

what is you point ?

Okay, cruelty to small animals is one of the recurrent traits of serial killers/repeat murderers. This has been established by the FBI and is part of the MacDonald triad of indicators of anti-social personality disorder/psychopathy (along with fire setting and bet wetting.) See, e.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macdonald_triad

I see no logical reason to treat this fellow any differently from someone who, as a child, tortured small animals. I doubt very much that childhood convictions/reports for animal cruelty would have much bearing on the outcome on the sentence given in an assault trial arising from a scuffle at work 17 years later, yet I suspect that it is a very similar indicator as the murder of Bulger. So, there is a point of fairness here. Arguing that someone should be locked up for a workplace scuffle because they murdered a child at the age of 10 is not, in my view, any different from arguing that in the same circumstances you should lock up a puppy teasing, fire-setting, bed-wetter, yet most people seem to accept the former, but probably wouldn't accept the latter. However, I suspect they are just about as predictive as each other of future homicidal behaviour. (i.e. significant relationship, but with low predictive power of future behaviour.) This was my basic point.

Moreover, I'm not sure I see a significant relationship between this scuffle and his former crime. A large portion of the male population has been involved in fights and drug taking, especially in their teens, twenties and early thirties. Without any further context, this scuffle just doesn't seem to be an indicator of anything other than a mindset common with many 20 something males. It doesn't show cruelty or indicate any significant power issues over and above the usual frustrations of that common to young males in dead end jobs.

On the other hand, if, at the age of 27, he had been convicted of arson, or cruelty to an animal or some other crime that suggests he has not sorted out the power issues that perhaps led him to murder Bulger, then by all means, throw him back into the clink and lose the key. If he is still involved in that sort of behaviour at 27, then rehabilitation has not worked and he may very well be a lost cause.

The sight of an unthinking baying mob always depresses me, as does the use of the word "evil". Shutting one's eyes and not trying to understand what has gone on is emotionally satisfying but doesn't get us anywhere. The unwillingness to understand the root causes of behaviour means that it is just as likely to recur at a high frequency in the future. understanding, by the way, is not the same as excusing.

In this case, I suspect that probably only one of the two boys was a psychopath, the other more likely a weak follower. It is wrong and counter-productive to tar them with the same brush. They both had problems, but one more dangerous to others in the future than the other (I suspect, and it was the impression I got from reading between the lines of the newspaper reports at the time. It also raises the question as to whether sociopaths/psychopaths can be cured and, if not, what do we do with the 1 to 2% of the population who are sociopaths/psychopaths?)

As I said before, the world can do without psychopaths and it would be a better place if they were all somewhere else, I just don't see the sense or fairness in correlating one form of criminal behaviour with all other forms of criminal behaviour. He now seems to be involved in the petty criminality and male rough and tumble that is very common, and should be treated more or less the same as any other young man behaving that way unless there is an indicator that the sort of problems that caused him to murder Bulger is evident.

Edited to add: Murder, in general, has the lowest re-offense rate of any crime.

Edited March 5, 2010 by D'oh

[miko]

Okay, cruelty to small animals is one of the recurrent traits of serial killers/repeat murderers. This has been established by the FBI and is part of the MacDonald triad of indicators of anti-social personality disorder/psychopathy (along with fire setting and bet wetting.) See, e.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macdonald_triad

I see no logical reason to treat this fellow any differently from someone who, as a child, tortured small animals. I doubt very much that childhood convictions/reports for animal cruelty would have much bearing on the outcome on the sentence given in an assault trial arising from a scuffle at work 17 years later, yet I suspect that it is a very similar indicator as the murder of Bulger. So, there is a point of fairness here. Arguing that someone should be locked up for a workplace scuffle because they murdered a child at the age of 10 is not, in my view, any different from arguing that in the same circumstances you should lock up a puppy teasing, fire-setting, bed-wetter, yet most people seem to accept the former, but probably wouldn't accept the latter. However, I suspect they are just about as predictive as each other of future homicidal behaviour. (i.e. significant relationship, but with low predictive power of future behaviour.) This was my basic point.

Moreover, I'm not sure I see a significant relationship between this scuffle and his former crime. A large portion of the male population has been involved in fights and drug taking, especially in their teens, twenties and early thirties. Without any further context, this scuffle just doesn't seem to be an indicator of anything other than a mindset common with many 20 something males. It doesn't show cruelty or indicate any significant power issues over and above the usual frustrations of that common to young males in dead end jobs.

On the other hand, if, at the age of 27, he had been convicted of arson, or cruelty to an animal or some other crime that suggests he has not sorted out the power issues that perhaps led him to murder Bulger, then by all means, throw him back into the clink and lose the key. If he is still involved in that sort of behaviour at 27, then rehabilitation has not worked and he may very well be a lost cause.

The sight of an unthinking baying mob always depresses me, as does the use of the word "evil". Shutting one's eyes and not trying to understand what has gone on is emotionally satisfying but doesn't get us anywhere. The unwillingness to understand the root causes of behaviour means that it is just as likely to recur at a high frequency in the future. understanding, by the way, is not the same as excusing.

In this case, I suspect that probably only one of the two boys was a psychopath, the other more likely a weak follower. It is wrong and counter-productive to tar them with the same brush. They both had problems, but one more dangerous to others in the future than the other (I suspect, and it was the impression I got from reading between the lines of the newspaper reports at the time. It also raises the question as to whether sociopaths/psychopaths can be cured and, if not, what do we do with the 1 to 2% of the population who are sociopaths/psychopaths?)

As I said before, the world can do without psychopaths and it would be a better place if they were all somewhere else, I just don't see the sense or fairness in correlating one form of criminal behaviour with all other forms of criminal behaviour. He now seems to be involved in the petty criminality and male rough and tumble that is very common, and should be treated more or less the same as any other young man behaving that way unless there is an indicator that the sort of problems that caused him to murder Bulger is evident.

Edited to add: Murder, in general, has the lowest re-offense rate of any crime.

I think you are wrong a quite a few points there.

1. Cruelty to animals might be one of the recurrent traits found in serial killers and murderers ,but many young boys who might be cruel to animals do not go on to murder other children. They grow up naturally and grow out of this trait .

2. So to say that this person should not be treated differently form someone who killed a small furry animal is nonsense. He killed an innocent toddler and he knew at the time what he was doing and he knows now.

3. Any person out on a life liecence has to be monitered very closely, last year out of 1,400 79 were returned to prison . When any crime is commited past offences are taken into consideration to look at the overall picture of that person , when sentancing that person ,and their past history is taken into consideration , when deciding their risk to the public and how stiff their sentence should be , repeat offernders are given harsher punishments. In most cases apart form the most serious of crimes first offenders will get a lighter sentence. That throws out your basic point that he is being treated differntly to anyone else. Crimminal history is always taken into consideration.

4. The crime he committed does not recurre at a high frequency at all. Very few children kill , and even in adults very few kill for kicks. Most murder's have a motive i.e. greed , or emotional involvment , the most likely person to kill you is your partner.

5. Somtimes there is no way to understand certain behaviour , there are thousands if not millions bought up in bad backgrounds like these two but they do not go on to kill.

6. Yes baying mobs might be deppresing , but there is such a thing as evil.

7. This man had a massive input of therapy and intense help over the years , prior to his release , they did not just open the doors after keeping him for 8 years and wave him goodbye .

8. He would have been well versed in what was expected of him , like any other lifer on release , but was unable to conform to the rules set out even with much ongoing help and was therefore returned to prison as a risk .

9. Look at his overall history not just his fight at work or petty drug taking , he is to much of a risk and society does not want him to kill again.

10. You might say that many young lads in dead end jobs get involved in petty crime and rough and tumble , however i would think very few get into fights in the work place as in most if not all companies that is a sackable offence. That in it's self speaks volumes of this mans inability to act in a safe and grown up fashion, most young men no matter how dead end their job do not risk fighting in the work place , i have worked in some very boring jobs with some very rough people but never once saw a fight and only heard of one once. The people I worked with however would have thought nothing of chinnig someone on a night out in a pub , but had the discipline and common sense not to get involved in the work place. He was incapable of being able to do this .

Edited March 5, 2010 by miko