The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
If you believe the tabloids, the release of Maxine Carr means any moment now you'll find yourself waking up with her "evil face" peering over you as she looks for kids to snatch and take to her gingerbread house.
The usual moral outcry from the Mail and Middle England over her release warranted front-page handwringing for a couple of days.
Why?
Well, the Mail points out that we're paying "thousands of pounds a day for her protection and anonymity", said in a tone that suggests such an evil woman shouldn't be allowed that.
Oh well hang on, what exactly did she do?
She provided an alibi for her boyfriend, who told her he was going to be "fitted up" for crimes, seeing as they had tried to do so previously.
So, misguidedly, she gave him an alibi. But as soon as she realised that he had murdered Holly Wells & Jessica Chapman, she changed her mind and told the police everything, saying in court that she didn't want to be "responsible or connected to that thing", pointing at Huntley.
She didn't kill anybody, she didn't assist or plan or help dispose of the bodies. She was miles away, unaware of what Ian Huntley did to those two girls.
But the press were looking for blood. Whilst on the one-hand talking about the terrible, terrible crimes and the pain and suffering of the parents - they also had a word-for-word computerised account each night on the news and diagrams (with explicit details) in the papers each day.
The Mail had a picture of Carr alongside Myra Hindley (who was a participant and willing accomplice to the murder of several children), and helped to whip up the idiot public into a murderfrenzy with the usual rent-a-mob banging on the van and screaming obscenities (with their confused kids being dragged along with them).
So if Carr does need 24/7 protection at such an expense, who's to blame for creating this furore over what is basically a naive, manipulated woman who certainly shouldn't have lied for Huntley - yet was no part of the murders.
Who's to blame?
That's right, the very same papers now tut-tutting and moralising that "we should foot the bill for her protection".
It makes no sense. To create outrage and fabricate a monster in order to sate the lust we have for morbid outrage, but then to piously turn around and say that she shouldn't be afforded protection?
Myra Hindley & Rosemary West were murderers, callous and brutal murderers of children.
As was Ian Huntley.
Maxine Carr is a stupid, trusting woman that made a mistake and promptly realised the gravity of the situation and co-operated 100% with the police.
But that seems to have skipped the attention of the papers, desperate to create bogeymen to frighten and outrage you.
So we get stories of benefit fraud to suggest that, whilst she may not have murdered 2 little girls, she's a pretty nasty person anyway to do that sort of thing - no little better than those scrounging darkies that sneak over the border and want to live in your bins and take your wages and make your kids worship a false-god and train them to crash planes into buildings.
C'mon people, don't fall victim to the idiot manipulation of the tabloid press.
Take a step back, ask yourself "Why is this story being presented this way?" and see through the infant-level games they play.
The usual moral outcry from the Mail and Middle England over her release warranted front-page handwringing for a couple of days.
Why?
Well, the Mail points out that we're paying "thousands of pounds a day for her protection and anonymity", said in a tone that suggests such an evil woman shouldn't be allowed that.
Oh well hang on, what exactly did she do?
She provided an alibi for her boyfriend, who told her he was going to be "fitted up" for crimes, seeing as they had tried to do so previously.
So, misguidedly, she gave him an alibi. But as soon as she realised that he had murdered Holly Wells & Jessica Chapman, she changed her mind and told the police everything, saying in court that she didn't want to be "responsible or connected to that thing", pointing at Huntley.
She didn't kill anybody, she didn't assist or plan or help dispose of the bodies. She was miles away, unaware of what Ian Huntley did to those two girls.
But the press were looking for blood. Whilst on the one-hand talking about the terrible, terrible crimes and the pain and suffering of the parents - they also had a word-for-word computerised account each night on the news and diagrams (with explicit details) in the papers each day.
The Mail had a picture of Carr alongside Myra Hindley (who was a participant and willing accomplice to the murder of several children), and helped to whip up the idiot public into a murderfrenzy with the usual rent-a-mob banging on the van and screaming obscenities (with their confused kids being dragged along with them).
So if Carr does need 24/7 protection at such an expense, who's to blame for creating this furore over what is basically a naive, manipulated woman who certainly shouldn't have lied for Huntley - yet was no part of the murders.
Who's to blame?
That's right, the very same papers now tut-tutting and moralising that "we should foot the bill for her protection".
It makes no sense. To create outrage and fabricate a monster in order to sate the lust we have for morbid outrage, but then to piously turn around and say that she shouldn't be afforded protection?
Myra Hindley & Rosemary West were murderers, callous and brutal murderers of children.
As was Ian Huntley.
Maxine Carr is a stupid, trusting woman that made a mistake and promptly realised the gravity of the situation and co-operated 100% with the police.
But that seems to have skipped the attention of the papers, desperate to create bogeymen to frighten and outrage you.
So we get stories of benefit fraud to suggest that, whilst she may not have murdered 2 little girls, she's a pretty nasty person anyway to do that sort of thing - no little better than those scrounging darkies that sneak over the border and want to live in your bins and take your wages and make your kids worship a false-god and train them to crash planes into buildings.
C'mon people, don't fall victim to the idiot manipulation of the tabloid press.
Take a step back, ask yourself "Why is this story being presented this way?" and see through the infant-level games they play.
Page:
I think the whole Carr debacle is an inictment of our current justice system.
The woman had a fair trial, and was found guilty of no more than perverting the course of justice, and some benefit fraud.
Perverting the course of justice is carried out on a massive scale, and she was basically lying for a man who she probably genuinely didn't think was connected to the murders. This doesn't seem fair justice to the tabloid newspapers though, and the world we live in today has no belief in a fair trail, and is absolutely out to have a vengeful outcome on released criminals and we will soon be living in a vigilante state.
I can see it coming in a worst case scenario sort of way. If I had the literary talents of Orwell, I'd write about the collapse of the legal system, and a resort to lawless anarchy, years before it came true, and have myself hailed as a true visionary by the world :)
Anyway, I can understand why people don't believe that the courts got it right when finding Carr not guilty of assisting in the murders. It's because the very same court system lets drink drivers off with small fines and limited bans. Because house breaking is almost unpunished whilst the criminals make far more from selling stolen good than the courts ever take, or more importantly get from them. It's because teenagers convicted of murder are housed in secure units with all mod cons and with more amenities and holidays than honest people living on the poverty line and are then released into the community with new identities, an education and absolutely no record of the crimes they have commited, just in case they are identified as the people who killed a four year old boy.
That's the message our penal and court system sends out today. Commit a crime, and rather than make your life a punishment and force you to remorse your ways, we'll pat you on the back, ask for an assurance that you'll never do it again, and give you a life which thousands of honest people will never have a chance of living.
As much as I sympathise with Carr, who really didn't do anywhere near as much wrong as we suspect, she is being punished on a much higher level of abstraction. She may end up being the martyr of our failing punishment system, and if we are lucky our politicians will learn from this and crate a punishment system which actually punishes, rather than being a locked door hotel for many.
The woman had a fair trial, and was found guilty of no more than perverting the course of justice, and some benefit fraud.
Perverting the course of justice is carried out on a massive scale, and she was basically lying for a man who she probably genuinely didn't think was connected to the murders. This doesn't seem fair justice to the tabloid newspapers though, and the world we live in today has no belief in a fair trail, and is absolutely out to have a vengeful outcome on released criminals and we will soon be living in a vigilante state.
I can see it coming in a worst case scenario sort of way. If I had the literary talents of Orwell, I'd write about the collapse of the legal system, and a resort to lawless anarchy, years before it came true, and have myself hailed as a true visionary by the world :)
Anyway, I can understand why people don't believe that the courts got it right when finding Carr not guilty of assisting in the murders. It's because the very same court system lets drink drivers off with small fines and limited bans. Because house breaking is almost unpunished whilst the criminals make far more from selling stolen good than the courts ever take, or more importantly get from them. It's because teenagers convicted of murder are housed in secure units with all mod cons and with more amenities and holidays than honest people living on the poverty line and are then released into the community with new identities, an education and absolutely no record of the crimes they have commited, just in case they are identified as the people who killed a four year old boy.
That's the message our penal and court system sends out today. Commit a crime, and rather than make your life a punishment and force you to remorse your ways, we'll pat you on the back, ask for an assurance that you'll never do it again, and give you a life which thousands of honest people will never have a chance of living.
As much as I sympathise with Carr, who really didn't do anywhere near as much wrong as we suspect, she is being punished on a much higher level of abstraction. She may end up being the martyr of our failing punishment system, and if we are lucky our politicians will learn from this and crate a punishment system which actually punishes, rather than being a locked door hotel for many.
If you believe the tabloids, the release of Maxine Carr means any moment now you'll find yourself waking up with her "evil face" peering over you as she looks for kids to snatch and take to her gingerbread house.
The usual moral outcry from the Mail and Middle England over her release warranted front-page handwringing for a couple of days.
Why?
Well, the Mail points out that we're paying "thousands of pounds a day for her protection and anonymity", said in a tone that suggests such an evil woman shouldn't be allowed that.
Oh well hang on, what exactly did she do?
She provided an alibi for her boyfriend, who told her he was going to be "fitted up" for crimes, seeing as they had tried to do so previously.
So, misguidedly, she gave him an alibi. But as soon as she realised that he had murdered Holly Wells & Jessica Chapman, she changed her mind and told the police everything, saying in court that she didn't want to be "responsible or connected to that thing", pointing at Huntley.
She didn't kill anybody, she didn't assist or plan or help dispose of the bodies. She was miles away, unaware of what Ian Huntley did to those two girls.
But the press were looking for blood. Whilst on the one-hand talking about the terrible, terrible crimes and the pain and suffering of the parents - they also had a word-for-word computerised account each night on the news and diagrams (with explicit details) in the papers each day.
The Mail had a picture of Carr alongside Myra Hindley (who was a participant and willing accomplice to the murder of several children), and helped to whip up the idiot public into a murderfrenzy with the usual rent-a-mob banging on the van and screaming obscenities (with their confused kids being dragged along with them).
So if Carr does need 24/7 protection at such an expense, who's to blame for creating this furore over what is basically a naive, manipulated woman who certainly shouldn't have lied for Huntley - yet was no part of the murders.
Who's to blame?
That's right, the very same papers now tut-tutting and moralising that "we should foot the bill for her protection".
It makes no sense. To create outrage and fabricate a monster in order to sate the lust we have for morbid outrage, but then to piously turn around and say that she shouldn't be afforded protection?
Myra Hindley & Rosemary West were murderers, callous and brutal murderers of children.
As was Ian Huntley.
Maxine Carr is a stupid, trusting woman that made a mistake and promptly realised the gravity of the situation and co-operated 100% with the police.
But that seems to have skipped the attention of the papers, desperate to create bogeymen to frighten and outrage you.
So we get stories of benefit fraud to suggest that, whilst she may not have murdered 2 little girls, she's a pretty nasty person anyway to do that sort of thing - no little better than those scrounging darkies that sneak over the border and want to live in your bins and take your wages and make your kids worship a false-god and train them to crash planes into buildings.
C'mon people, don't fall victim to the idiot manipulation of the tabloid press.
Take a step back, ask yourself "Why is this story being presented this way?" and see through the infant-level games they play.
The usual moral outcry from the Mail and Middle England over her release warranted front-page handwringing for a couple of days.
Why?
Well, the Mail points out that we're paying "thousands of pounds a day for her protection and anonymity", said in a tone that suggests such an evil woman shouldn't be allowed that.
Oh well hang on, what exactly did she do?
She provided an alibi for her boyfriend, who told her he was going to be "fitted up" for crimes, seeing as they had tried to do so previously.
So, misguidedly, she gave him an alibi. But as soon as she realised that he had murdered Holly Wells & Jessica Chapman, she changed her mind and told the police everything, saying in court that she didn't want to be "responsible or connected to that thing", pointing at Huntley.
She didn't kill anybody, she didn't assist or plan or help dispose of the bodies. She was miles away, unaware of what Ian Huntley did to those two girls.
But the press were looking for blood. Whilst on the one-hand talking about the terrible, terrible crimes and the pain and suffering of the parents - they also had a word-for-word computerised account each night on the news and diagrams (with explicit details) in the papers each day.
The Mail had a picture of Carr alongside Myra Hindley (who was a participant and willing accomplice to the murder of several children), and helped to whip up the idiot public into a murderfrenzy with the usual rent-a-mob banging on the van and screaming obscenities (with their confused kids being dragged along with them).
So if Carr does need 24/7 protection at such an expense, who's to blame for creating this furore over what is basically a naive, manipulated woman who certainly shouldn't have lied for Huntley - yet was no part of the murders.
Who's to blame?
That's right, the very same papers now tut-tutting and moralising that "we should foot the bill for her protection".
It makes no sense. To create outrage and fabricate a monster in order to sate the lust we have for morbid outrage, but then to piously turn around and say that she shouldn't be afforded protection?
Myra Hindley & Rosemary West were murderers, callous and brutal murderers of children.
As was Ian Huntley.
Maxine Carr is a stupid, trusting woman that made a mistake and promptly realised the gravity of the situation and co-operated 100% with the police.
But that seems to have skipped the attention of the papers, desperate to create bogeymen to frighten and outrage you.
So we get stories of benefit fraud to suggest that, whilst she may not have murdered 2 little girls, she's a pretty nasty person anyway to do that sort of thing - no little better than those scrounging darkies that sneak over the border and want to live in your bins and take your wages and make your kids worship a false-god and train them to crash planes into buildings.
C'mon people, don't fall victim to the idiot manipulation of the tabloid press.
Take a step back, ask yourself "Why is this story being presented this way?" and see through the infant-level games they play.
Page: