The Tories Want You To Just Stop It!
News1 min ago
What Kind Of Message - Absolutely Cannot Believe It!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bednobs. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
andy-hughes
/// That sounds slightly paranoid on your part AOG. ///
Not paranoid in the least just read some of the anti-Daily Mail posts that I receive.
/// I am sure the Mail will be all over this like a rash - it ticks all their readership buttons. ///
There you are, you have just proved me right.
Incidentally the Daily Mail are already over it, didn't you read the excerpts that I posted?
/// That sounds slightly paranoid on your part AOG. ///
Not paranoid in the least just read some of the anti-Daily Mail posts that I receive.
/// I am sure the Mail will be all over this like a rash - it ticks all their readership buttons. ///
There you are, you have just proved me right.
Incidentally the Daily Mail are already over it, didn't you read the excerpts that I posted?
But strictly speaking she hasnt done her time...
no finite time was given, just that a minimum of 5 years be served.
So as far as i can see shes getting away with the absolute minimum.
another one who has pulled the wool over the eyes of one and all.
No doubt shes really sorry blah blah blah, and has said whatever they want her to say.
The punishement could have fitted the crime if these pathetic do-gooders werent involved and a judge with some nuts actually had handed down a proper sentence instead of what amounts to just 5 years for allowing the murder of a child.
i dont suppose Joe Public thought she'd serve such a paltry sentence after hearing "a minimum of five years" , most people would have expected a fair deal more to really punish her rather than this which what amounts to no more than a slap on the hand.
I wonder if theres any restrictions on her going near kids ?
no finite time was given, just that a minimum of 5 years be served.
So as far as i can see shes getting away with the absolute minimum.
another one who has pulled the wool over the eyes of one and all.
No doubt shes really sorry blah blah blah, and has said whatever they want her to say.
The punishement could have fitted the crime if these pathetic do-gooders werent involved and a judge with some nuts actually had handed down a proper sentence instead of what amounts to just 5 years for allowing the murder of a child.
i dont suppose Joe Public thought she'd serve such a paltry sentence after hearing "a minimum of five years" , most people would have expected a fair deal more to really punish her rather than this which what amounts to no more than a slap on the hand.
I wonder if theres any restrictions on her going near kids ?
it makes you wonder if there is some ulterior motive here - i mean why do they do this?
they MUST know that this will cause extreme upset and anger all over the country.
they must know that torturing and killing a child deserves a longer punishment than 3 years
these are supposedly professionals, they must have seen all manner of criminals etc
so how can they think that she has been suitably punished?
is it some political game? do they know the judge wont actually do it? do they just want controversy? are they even just trying to wind her up?
prison is not just about rehabilitation, or keeping someone away from the public because they may be a danger - its meant to be a punishment - its meant to cause some level of suffering and hardship to the criminal in order to somewhat 'reset the balance'
so why set her free just because she is not a danger to the public? she never was, not really.
it makes no sense ... and as judge judy always says, if it makes no sense its probably not true ...
they MUST know that this will cause extreme upset and anger all over the country.
they must know that torturing and killing a child deserves a longer punishment than 3 years
these are supposedly professionals, they must have seen all manner of criminals etc
so how can they think that she has been suitably punished?
is it some political game? do they know the judge wont actually do it? do they just want controversy? are they even just trying to wind her up?
prison is not just about rehabilitation, or keeping someone away from the public because they may be a danger - its meant to be a punishment - its meant to cause some level of suffering and hardship to the criminal in order to somewhat 'reset the balance'
so why set her free just because she is not a danger to the public? she never was, not really.
it makes no sense ... and as judge judy always says, if it makes no sense its probably not true ...
On what basis, ymf, do you think the ECHR would intervene? Can you cite a single example of anyone being released ,early or at all, on the decision of the ECHR ? It would not and could not. This woman's crime is recognised by all states, and so is jail.
The judge set the minimum term. Why then is anyone surprised that this woman is to be released having served it? Is the judge one of the " minority chattering classes ", do you think ?
The judge set the minimum term. Why then is anyone surprised that this woman is to be released having served it? Is the judge one of the " minority chattering classes ", do you think ?
joko - I am sure the powers-that-be are well aware of the groundswell of public opinion in this case but -
laws are not carried out with an input of moral outrage or desire for revenge, and nor should they be.
Our laws are created and implemented in an atmosphere of fact and dispassionate decision-making, and that has to apply in all cases in order for the system to work.
In this case, this woman has served her proscribed sentence - a little more allowing for time spent on remand, and the checks and balances of the case and the law have been applied.
Gnashing teeth and holding up hands solves nothing at all.
The decision is made by people who have far more access to relevent informantion than the geneal public, or indeed the media, so we must trust them to have made a balanced decision in this instance.
laws are not carried out with an input of moral outrage or desire for revenge, and nor should they be.
Our laws are created and implemented in an atmosphere of fact and dispassionate decision-making, and that has to apply in all cases in order for the system to work.
In this case, this woman has served her proscribed sentence - a little more allowing for time spent on remand, and the checks and balances of the case and the law have been applied.
Gnashing teeth and holding up hands solves nothing at all.
The decision is made by people who have far more access to relevent informantion than the geneal public, or indeed the media, so we must trust them to have made a balanced decision in this instance.
/If they didnt let her out the ECHR would soon do it/
That's rubbish ymb - when has that ever happened?
/and if they did try to take it away then I imagine her first port of call will be the ECHR /
Also rubbish from Bazzy
New born babies are frequently removed from 'unfit mothers' by Social Services without recourse to the (LOL) ECHR
Clearly Bazzy, the 'Real World' you imagine you inhabit isn't all that 'real' - or you'd know that
That's rubbish ymb - when has that ever happened?
/and if they did try to take it away then I imagine her first port of call will be the ECHR /
Also rubbish from Bazzy
New born babies are frequently removed from 'unfit mothers' by Social Services without recourse to the (LOL) ECHR
Clearly Bazzy, the 'Real World' you imagine you inhabit isn't all that 'real' - or you'd know that
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Crosswords5 mins ago
Crosswords5 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.