Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

juvenal

Ian Huntley Sues For £100K

Recommended Posts

Guest Absolutely Fabulous

You'd think he'd be glad to have avoided being given a death sentence. You can't please some people.ph34r.gif

If he wins his case he will prove - more than ever - that justice has nowt to do with the law of this land.dry.gif

He will also open the floodgates for every exploiter this side of Venus.ohmy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is important that we have a duty of care to prisoners . I agree Huntley should have been executed but the principle of duty of care should stil be upheld. Its a disgrace that we are unable to protect our prisoners from nutters whilst serving a sentence. The prison service is failing in its duty to vunerable prisoners. Its a sad reflection of our society

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is important that we have a duty of care to prisoners . I agree Huntley should have been executed but the principle of duty of care should stil be upheld. Its a disgrace that we are unable to protect our prisoners from nutters whilst serving a sentence. The prison service is failing in its duty to vunerable prisoners. Its a sad reflection of our society

Why don't we have a nationwide phone-in poll on whether he should get some of OUR money, eh?

Let's have some instant democracy here!

Let the people decide what should happen to him.

Let the public of this country give THEIR verdict on whether THEIR money should be used to protect his "rights".

Let the hate flow!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't we have a nationwide phone-in poll on whether he should get some of OUR money, eh?

Let's have some instant democracy here!

Let the people decide what should happen to him.

Let the public of this country give THEIR verdict on whether THEIR money should be used to protect his "rights".

Let the hate flow!

I already pay my tax to ensure prisoners are protected whilst serving their sentence. With over 100 attacks each day on prisoners I am not getting what I am paying for. Even Phil Mitchells kid got a good kicking in prison yesterday. If that can happen on a set of East enders it can happen anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd think he'd be glad to have avoided being given a death sentence. You can't please some people.ph34r.gif

If he wins his case he will prove - more than ever - that justice has nowt to do with the law of this land.dry.gif

He will also open the floodgates for every exploiter this side of Venus.ohmy.gif

Well, given that he was never in line for the death sentence to begin with - it having been abolished 40+ years ago - he didn't "avoid" it at all as it was never there to be avoided.

I couldn't give a toss whether he gets the shit kicked out of him in prision but, whichever way you look at it, he has rights under the Human Rights Act - rightly or wrongly, I'm not offering any opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Absolutely Fabulous

Well, given that he was never in line for the death sentence to begin with - it having been abolished 40+ years ago - he didn't "avoid" it at all as it was never there to be avoided.

I couldn't give a toss whether he gets the shit kicked out of him in prision but, whichever way you look at it, he has rights under the Human Rights Act - rightly or wrongly, I'm not offering any opinion.

True enough. but is was once an option and still is in some parts of the world. I suppose I should have been more specific and said " You'd think he'd be thankful that he isn't living in those parts of the world ,where a UK jail would seem like the Hilton, or where being beheaded/ shot was an option."

That better, hon?smile.gif

My comment was also sarcastic, witness the smiley.

Whatever : It'll still open doors for prisoners who want to emerge from jail as rich men, not to mention lining the pockets of unscrupulous legal aid firms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is important that we have a duty of care to prisoners . I agree Huntley should have been executed but the principle of duty of care should stil be upheld. Its a disgrace that we are unable to protect our prisoners from nutters whilst serving a sentence. The prison service is failing in its duty to vunerable prisoners. Its a sad reflection of our society

He is the nutter a couple of kids should have been protected from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is the nutter a couple of kids should have been protected from.

Entirely agreed. However, they weren't and now he's in prison for 40 years. Those facts aren't going to change.

So, where do we go now? The state is subject to the Human Rights Act under which he has certain rights. Do we say that the Act doesn't (or shouldn't) apply in relation to protecting the rights of some people? If so which ones and what criteria do we apply to this decision.

Also, importantly, if we agree that the Act does apply in relation to him then do we think it acceptable that the state simply ignores the law in relation to him? If so then how should the state make these decisions and we then complain if the state decides to ignore it in relation to other people when it feels like it?

No fan of the guy, just prompting discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable

I hope his board and lodging costs will be deducted from any settlement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Entirely agreed. However, they weren't and now he's in prison for 40 years. Those facts aren't going to change.

So, where do we go now? The state is subject to the Human Rights Act under which he has certain rights. Do we say that the Act doesn't (or shouldn't) apply in relation to protecting the rights of some people? If so which ones and what criteria do we apply to this decision.

Also, importantly, if we agree that the Act does apply in relation to him then do we think it acceptable that the state simply ignores the law in relation to him? If so then how should the state make these decisions and we then complain if the state decides to ignore it in relation to other people when it feels like it?

No fan of the guy, just prompting discussion.

The fact that it is Huntley and the vast majority of us would have volunteered to spring the trap door under him should not cloud the general principle.Should a person who is jailed,for example,after refusing to pay a motoring fine be at the mercy of knife wielding nutters? These people are the equivalents of the paedophile lynch mobs. If society sends someone to jail it is to be deprived of their liberty,not to get carved up by kangaroo court jailbirds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope his board and lodging costs will be deducted from any settlement.

Prisoners used to pay for that themselves. If they couldn't afford it they ended up shackled in the dungeon and begging for alms through the grate. Of course their stay in prison wasn't for long, as it was just a means of making sure they turned up for trial. If convicted, they got fined or put to death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is important that we have a duty of care to prisoners . I agree Huntley should have been executed but the principle of duty of care should stil be upheld. Its a disgrace that we are unable to protect our prisoners from nutters whilst serving a sentence. The prison service is failing in its duty to vunerable prisoners. Its a sad reflection of our society

I already pay my tax to ensure prisoners are protected whilst serving their sentence. With over 100 attacks each day on prisoners I am not getting what I am paying for. Even Phil Mitchells kid got a good kicking in prison yesterday. If that can happen on a set of East enders it can happen anywhere.

The fact that it is Huntley and the vast majority of us would have volunteered to spring the trap door under him should not cloud the general principle.Should a person who is jailed,for example,after refusing to pay a motoring fine be at the mercy of knife wielding nutters? These people are the equivalents of the paedophile lynch mobs. If society sends someone to jail it is to be deprived of their liberty,not to get carved up by kangaroo court jailbirds.

I'd love to see the death penalty returned for such cases, but the fact remains, once in prison, a prisoner must still be entitled to the basic human rights of food, shelter and protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't we have a nationwide phone-in poll on whether he should get some of OUR money, eh?

Let's have some instant democracy here!

Let the people decide what should happen to him.

Let the public of this country give THEIR verdict on whether THEIR money should be used to protect his "rights".

Let the hate flow!

Haven't you got a Reichstag to burn down or something?

C0ck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest theboltonfury

I hope his board and lodging costs will be deducted from any settlement.

They can load it on to his canteen account, where he can spend a maximum of £13 a week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Entirely agreed. However, they weren't and now he's in prison for 40 years. Those facts aren't going to change.

So, where do we go now? The state is subject to the Human Rights Act under which he has certain rights. Do we say that the Act doesn't (or shouldn't) apply in relation to protecting the rights of some people? If so which ones and what criteria do we apply to this decision.

Also, importantly, if we agree that the Act does apply in relation to him then do we think it acceptable that the state simply ignores the law in relation to him? If so then how should the state make these decisions and we then complain if the state decides to ignore it in relation to other people when it feels like it?

No fan of the guy, just prompting discussion.

It is frustrating that this would never have become an issue if he had just been turned over to the relatives of the victims as he should have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is frustrating that this would never have become an issue if he had just been turned over to the relatives of the victims as he should have been.

Well, whatever you think should or should not have happend is pretty much beside the point. The law didn't allow for that so it was never going to happen.

Besides, that is a stupid statement. What if the relatives were a bunch of touchy-feely, new-age, lefties who just let him go? Do they have to moral authority to subject such psycho onto the rest of us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, whatever you think should or should not have happend is pretty much beside the point. The law didn't allow for that so it was never going to happen.

Besides, that is a stupid statement. What if the relatives were a bunch of touchy-feely, new-age, lefties who just let him go? Do they have to moral authority to subject such psycho onto the rest of us?

Well throw him in jail with all the other convicted psychos and throw away the key then.

Only don`t tell me we have to protect him, IMO he forfeited his rights when he deprived two others of their right to life. And balls to what all the touchy-feely, new-age, lefties might say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest absolutezero

Well throw him in jail with all the other convicted psychos and throw away the key then.

Only don`t tell me we have to protect him, IMO he forfeited his rights when he deprived two others of their right to life. And balls to what all the touchy-feely, new-age, lefties might say.

I'm still not 100% sure he did it. I know who I suspect but I'm not saying publicly lest I fall foul of libel laws.

I think he SHOULD sue them as they have failed in their duty of care towards him.

Take away WHO he is and WHAT he has done. He still has rights (not to be assaulted etc) under the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well throw him in jail with all the other convicted psychos and throw away the key then.

Only don`t tell me we have to protect him, IMO he forfeited his rights when he deprived two others of their right to life. And balls to what all the touchy-feely, new-age, lefties might say.

Unfortunately, legally speaking, he didn't. I offer no opinion as to whether that is right or wrong but it is a fact. One of the rights he has/had is the right to liberty. That was taken awa when he was locked up but was taken away lawfully after conviction.

Your last sentence doesn't accord with what you said about turning him over to the victims relatives. If you think they have the right to decide what to do with him then surely their decision to let him go is equally as valid as if they had decided to kick him to death? Or do they only have a say if their decision agrees with yours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still not 100% sure he did it. I know who I suspect but I'm not saying publicly lest I fall foul of libel laws.

I think he SHOULD sue them as they have failed in their duty of care towards him.

Take away WHO he is and WHAT he has done. He still has rights (not to be assaulted etc) under the law.

I'm pretty convinced he did it. No, I wasn't at the trial but there has never been the slightest suggestion from anyone that it may have been anyone else.

I'd doubt that you would fall foul of any libel laws in merely giving an opinion. If you stated it as fact then maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest absolutezero

I'm pretty convinced he did it. No, I wasn't at the trial but there has never been the slightest suggestion from anyone that it may have been anyone else.

I'd doubt that you would fall foul of any libel laws in merely giving an opinion. If you stated it as fact then maybe.

I'll not take the risk but I will say I believe he took the rap for it on someone else's behalf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll not take the risk but I will say I believe he took the rap for it on someone else's behalf.

Oh go on - spill it man.

If you are referring to his bird then I doubt it. Besides, this was a massive, massive investigation and neither of them appear bright enough to spin a line like that to the cops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well throw him in jail with all the other convicted psychos and throw away the key then.

Only don`t tell me we have to protect him, IMO he forfeited his rights when he deprived two others of their right to life. And balls to what all the touchy-feely, new-age, lefties might say.

Two choices really. Hang him or throw him in prison. If prison, he has to be treated as a human being, with rights. I would have hanged him, end of, but they didn't, so a duty of care exists.

Actually, there is a third alternative but concentration camps went out of fashion circa 1945.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 245 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.