The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Firstly I have checked about and this subject doesnt seem to have been posted about yet, but I am sorry if I am duplicating what someone else has written.
Anyway I saw on the news that this sick paedophile that raped a 13 month old child has got just 5 years in prison for the offence. How the hell is that justice? The child, although probably not old enough to know what was going on, will be messed up for the rest of its life and the sick pervert will be let out in 5 years when I may well have children of my own.
I think people like that should be castrated or executed.
What are your views?
Anyway I saw on the news that this sick paedophile that raped a 13 month old child has got just 5 years in prison for the offence. How the hell is that justice? The child, although probably not old enough to know what was going on, will be messed up for the rest of its life and the sick pervert will be let out in 5 years when I may well have children of my own.
I think people like that should be castrated or executed.
What are your views?
Page:
I never heard about this. When I read the first post, I had to read it again. Thought you got the age messed up! That is truly sickening. Someone in prison will sort him out. Hopefully they do anyway.
The sagacious one wrote:
(which he no doubt was going to publish on the internet for the
> enjoyment of other peadophiles)
Though he did attempt to delete them and this bit is pure conjecture I must say, so please disregard it.
(which he no doubt was going to publish on the internet for the
> enjoyment of other peadophiles)
Though he did attempt to delete them and this bit is pure conjecture I must say, so please disregard it.
Goatboy wrote:
> This bit still needs pointing out:
>
> ""A lot of people will say 'that's a lot of nonsense, let's
> roast him [the accused] slowly over a fire for this' but we pay and
> train the judge to be independent of politicians, to be independent
> of the press and to coolly look at something after taking
> professional risk assessments."
>
> From this link, as provided by Belldandy a few days ago:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3083562.stm
I understand this and it is reassuring that judges are allegedly unaffected by press, public and polictical persuasion. However law is something that is foisted upon us the moment we are born into a country; the law is there for the benefit of society and if society deems the law to be an ass, how is to say we are wrong?
Obviously the public's opinion is easily swayed by the media and an often irrational sense of morality is applied (outrage to the Brass Eye paedophile special was an example of indignation for the sake of indignation) but in this case the issue is clear: he raped a baby whilst he had a naked girl in his bed, he took hideous photos of the act (which he no doubt was going to publish on the internet for the enjoyment of other peadophiles) and he was also responsible for downloading numerous pitcures himself. I am not a member if the tar and feather mob, I just think that there is no justification for leniancy whatever the circumstances. The sentence may take into account other considerations and information that only the judge will have access to, however are we saying that there are extraneous circumstances in which it is more acceptable to be paedophile?
I'm not one for saying "cut his nuts off" and however draconian a measure was put in place for this sort if crime; people would still carry it out. I guess that biological urges, are in some instances, more persuasive then our own derived morality. I think the outrage stems from the fact that another judge (on the same day) gave someone a longer sentence for a speeding offence or similar "low grade crime".
The apparent iconsistency is the issue and it appears to some that judges are ranking some "more dispicable" offences above "lesser" offences.
> This bit still needs pointing out:
>
> ""A lot of people will say 'that's a lot of nonsense, let's
> roast him [the accused] slowly over a fire for this' but we pay and
> train the judge to be independent of politicians, to be independent
> of the press and to coolly look at something after taking
> professional risk assessments."
>
> From this link, as provided by Belldandy a few days ago:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3083562.stm
I understand this and it is reassuring that judges are allegedly unaffected by press, public and polictical persuasion. However law is something that is foisted upon us the moment we are born into a country; the law is there for the benefit of society and if society deems the law to be an ass, how is to say we are wrong?
Obviously the public's opinion is easily swayed by the media and an often irrational sense of morality is applied (outrage to the Brass Eye paedophile special was an example of indignation for the sake of indignation) but in this case the issue is clear: he raped a baby whilst he had a naked girl in his bed, he took hideous photos of the act (which he no doubt was going to publish on the internet for the enjoyment of other peadophiles) and he was also responsible for downloading numerous pitcures himself. I am not a member if the tar and feather mob, I just think that there is no justification for leniancy whatever the circumstances. The sentence may take into account other considerations and information that only the judge will have access to, however are we saying that there are extraneous circumstances in which it is more acceptable to be paedophile?
I'm not one for saying "cut his nuts off" and however draconian a measure was put in place for this sort if crime; people would still carry it out. I guess that biological urges, are in some instances, more persuasive then our own derived morality. I think the outrage stems from the fact that another judge (on the same day) gave someone a longer sentence for a speeding offence or similar "low grade crime".
The apparent iconsistency is the issue and it appears to some that judges are ranking some "more dispicable" offences above "lesser" offences.
Simon Says wrote:
> I'm not defending the man involved, or even suggesting that his
> sentence is appropriate. I'm just surprised at the reaction here with
> talk of mutilation, public humiliation and murder.
Well, i think he should be castrated. For two reasons, a form of punishment, and to stop him doing it again. Sure, he may say, 'sos guys, i'll never do it again', but i say how much trust can you place in a criminals words?
Public Humiliation, also as a form of punishment.
Murder, no. He shouldn't be killed. He should be left to suffer from his actions!
They may seem barbaric answers, but the old ways can be the best ways.
> I'm not defending the man involved, or even suggesting that his
> sentence is appropriate. I'm just surprised at the reaction here with
> talk of mutilation, public humiliation and murder.
Well, i think he should be castrated. For two reasons, a form of punishment, and to stop him doing it again. Sure, he may say, 'sos guys, i'll never do it again', but i say how much trust can you place in a criminals words?
Public Humiliation, also as a form of punishment.
Murder, no. He shouldn't be killed. He should be left to suffer from his actions!
They may seem barbaric answers, but the old ways can be the best ways.
The sagacious one wrote:
> He's certainly remorseful now he's in prison. How can you be certain
> that he'll never do this again? And what if it was your baby daughter
> he'd forced his peniis into? I wouldn't be so forgiving.
I don't know that he'll never do it again, I've only got the judges word to go by, who has psychiatric reports to go on. The point is that you don't know either, yet you all want him lynched. You and your angry rabble must be such experts on criminality!
> "Police who raided his Grangemouth home found a powerful
> computer, CDs, and floppy disks containing 2,280 indecent images of
> children. Most had been downloaded from the internet, but computer
> specialists were able to recover some horrific images of Taylor's own
> making which he had tried to delete. They included graphic
> incriminating pictures of Taylor himself raping the baby girl, whose
> age at the time was estimated to be 13 months and of the six-year-old
> girl naked in bed".
>
> So no one but the criminal suffers then?
He got 5 years for it, no-one doubts he was guilty.
> I think that universal outrage is justified in this instance.
You look really cool with that placard-waving mob behind you.
> He's certainly remorseful now he's in prison. How can you be certain
> that he'll never do this again? And what if it was your baby daughter
> he'd forced his peniis into? I wouldn't be so forgiving.
I don't know that he'll never do it again, I've only got the judges word to go by, who has psychiatric reports to go on. The point is that you don't know either, yet you all want him lynched. You and your angry rabble must be such experts on criminality!
> "Police who raided his Grangemouth home found a powerful
> computer, CDs, and floppy disks containing 2,280 indecent images of
> children. Most had been downloaded from the internet, but computer
> specialists were able to recover some horrific images of Taylor's own
> making which he had tried to delete. They included graphic
> incriminating pictures of Taylor himself raping the baby girl, whose
> age at the time was estimated to be 13 months and of the six-year-old
> girl naked in bed".
>
> So no one but the criminal suffers then?
He got 5 years for it, no-one doubts he was guilty.
> I think that universal outrage is justified in this instance.
You look really cool with that placard-waving mob behind you.
This bit still needs pointing out:
""A lot of people will say 'that's a lot of nonsense, let's roast him [the accused] slowly over a fire for this' but we pay and train the judge to be independent of politicians, to be independent of the press and to coolly look at something after taking professional risk assessments."
From this link, as provided by Belldandy a few days ago:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3083562.stm
""A lot of people will say 'that's a lot of nonsense, let's roast him [the accused] slowly over a fire for this' but we pay and train the judge to be independent of politicians, to be independent of the press and to coolly look at something after taking professional risk assessments."
From this link, as provided by Belldandy a few days ago:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3083562.stm
Simon Says wrote:
> I think this intolerant reaction is extrordinary.
>
> Just look at yourselves. Yes, a man does something that is very, very
> wrong. Suddenly all of you are talking about extreme and barbaric
> punishments
Its called being human. Things we dislike or things that anger us, are bound to cause a reaction. We want to rid of these things etc
> I think this intolerant reaction is extrordinary.
>
> Just look at yourselves. Yes, a man does something that is very, very
> wrong. Suddenly all of you are talking about extreme and barbaric
> punishments
Its called being human. Things we dislike or things that anger us, are bound to cause a reaction. We want to rid of these things etc
I agree full heartedly with Saggy.
Miserableman wrote:
> It's a good thing everyone on this thread knows what they're talking
> about.
>
>
> The judge gave him a lenient sentence because it was clear the man
> would never do it again, due to the remorse, guilt, shame and sorrow
> he felt. The man was so disgusted at his own actions that he sought
> help before the crime was ever discovered.
"Defence advocate Mhairi Richards said he was stricken with remorse, had lost four stones in weight and had requested psychiatric help in prison".
He's certainly remorseful now he's in prison. How can you be certain that he'll never do this again? And what if it was your baby daughter he'd forced his peniis into? I wouldn't be so forgiving.
The only person that will
> ever suffer because of this crime is the criminal, for the rest of
> his life. The infant doesn't know and will never know.
"Police who raided his Grangemouth home found a powerful computer, CDs, and floppy disks containing 2,280 indecent images of children. Most had been downloaded from the internet, but computer specialists were able to recover some horrific images of Taylor's own making which he had tried to delete. They included graphic incriminating pictures of Taylor himself raping the baby girl, whose age at the time was estimated to be 13 months and of the six-year-old girl naked in bed".
So no one but the criminal suffers then?
> In the circumstances, I think 5 years is justified. Just because it
> was an OMG BABY HOW COULD HE???? doesn't mean the law has to bend to
> public outrage. Go back to your tabloids, ignorant masses.
I think that universal outrage is justified in this instance.
> It's a good thing everyone on this thread knows what they're talking
> about.
>
>
> The judge gave him a lenient sentence because it was clear the man
> would never do it again, due to the remorse, guilt, shame and sorrow
> he felt. The man was so disgusted at his own actions that he sought
> help before the crime was ever discovered.
"Defence advocate Mhairi Richards said he was stricken with remorse, had lost four stones in weight and had requested psychiatric help in prison".
He's certainly remorseful now he's in prison. How can you be certain that he'll never do this again? And what if it was your baby daughter he'd forced his peniis into? I wouldn't be so forgiving.
The only person that will
> ever suffer because of this crime is the criminal, for the rest of
> his life. The infant doesn't know and will never know.
"Police who raided his Grangemouth home found a powerful computer, CDs, and floppy disks containing 2,280 indecent images of children. Most had been downloaded from the internet, but computer specialists were able to recover some horrific images of Taylor's own making which he had tried to delete. They included graphic incriminating pictures of Taylor himself raping the baby girl, whose age at the time was estimated to be 13 months and of the six-year-old girl naked in bed".
So no one but the criminal suffers then?
> In the circumstances, I think 5 years is justified. Just because it
> was an OMG BABY HOW COULD HE???? doesn't mean the law has to bend to
> public outrage. Go back to your tabloids, ignorant masses.
I think that universal outrage is justified in this instance.
I think it'll be worse for him when he gets out of prison.
Page: