British man beats German tourist to death.
Discussion
WestyCarl said:
But the kid wasn't being abused, they were in a restaurant having some pics taken of them. The child probably didn't even realise. And for this the family is now going to suffer.
I can imagine parents rage if they catch someone in some sort of act, but taking pics in a restaurant......
....And who says that there were actually indecent images on the iPad anyway? I can imagine parents rage if they catch someone in some sort of act, but taking pics in a restaurant......
Rumour quickly becomes "fact" -look at Hillsborough, Jean-Charles de Menez, etc. for examples.
The dead man has been convicted and sentenced by an Internet/tabloid, witch-hunting lynch mob.
We don't know what and why his happened, but there is the rule of law for a reason, and it mostly works - No matter what the masses like to think.
The German was his drinking buddy.
He has 'pending' charges relating to child porn.
Brit 'powerfully built' gym bunny.
Brit sees he's taking pics of his daughter.
Takes family home.
Returns and destroys evidence (ipad) after seeing child porn.
Punches mate who dies.
No direct harm done to child in question.
Or that's how I understand it.
Puncher is a thug idiot who has fecked himself, whatever you think of the victim.
Child will now possibly not have dad around for a few years.
Not clever all round. Over-reaction/vigilantism, not justice. No winners.
He has 'pending' charges relating to child porn.
Brit 'powerfully built' gym bunny.
Brit sees he's taking pics of his daughter.
Takes family home.
Returns and destroys evidence (ipad) after seeing child porn.
Punches mate who dies.
No direct harm done to child in question.
Or that's how I understand it.
Puncher is a thug idiot who has fecked himself, whatever you think of the victim.
Child will now possibly not have dad around for a few years.
Not clever all round. Over-reaction/vigilantism, not justice. No winners.
schmunk said:
Do you honestly believe this?
Yes, because it is completely true.10 year maximum tariff and that is automatically reduces for a guilty plea, and again if they have previous good character (legalese for first offence). That leaves only 40 months to serve for a maximum tariff offence.
If you find that unbelievable I humbly suggest you don't query the typical sentance.
LucreLout said:
Yes, because it is completely true.
10 year maximum tariff and that is automatically reduces for a guilty plea, and again if they have previous good character (legalese for first offence). That leaves only 40 months to serve for a maximum tariff offence.
If you find that unbelievable I humbly suggest you don't query the typical sentance.
That wasn't the part of your post I was questioning...10 year maximum tariff and that is automatically reduces for a guilty plea, and again if they have previous good character (legalese for first offence). That leaves only 40 months to serve for a maximum tariff offence.
If you find that unbelievable I humbly suggest you don't query the typical sentance.
andy_s said:
The German was his drinking buddy.
He has 'pending' charges relating to child porn.
Brit 'powerfully built' gym bunny.
Brit sees he's taking pics of his daughter.
Takes family home.
Returns and destroys evidence (ipad) after seeing child porn.
Punches mate who dies.
No direct harm done to child in question.
Or that's how I understand it.
Puncher is a thug idiot who has fecked himself, whatever you think of the victim.
Child will now possibly not have dad around for a few years.
Not clever all round. Over-reaction/vigilantism, not justice. No winners.
That's how I see it, instead of protecting his family he's now exposed them to the stress of legal action and possible jail termHe has 'pending' charges relating to child porn.
Brit 'powerfully built' gym bunny.
Brit sees he's taking pics of his daughter.
Takes family home.
Returns and destroys evidence (ipad) after seeing child porn.
Punches mate who dies.
No direct harm done to child in question.
Or that's how I understand it.
Puncher is a thug idiot who has fecked himself, whatever you think of the victim.
Child will now possibly not have dad around for a few years.
Not clever all round. Over-reaction/vigilantism, not justice. No winners.
schmunk said:
That wasn't the part of your post I was questioning...
Oh 
Well, the current scandal seems to surround a lot of high profile people within Westminster and the wider judiciary. We know for a fact that senior political figures were involved at least peripherally with a paedo rights group because they're documented as doing so.
I can't see any other justification for such lax tariffs other than self interest in there being so.
Rovinghawk said:
Vigilante justice. What could possibly be wrong with that?
If he's given a fair trial & found guilty then nail him up on a cross, but give him that fair trial first. Emotion doesn't always lead to justice.
i agree on the emotion part. i also agree some people can control their emotions better than others (we are all different) and are not so quick to react in certain situations. what i cannot see is how else someone could react in the situation here. as parents we are programmed to protect our offspring over all else .If he's given a fair trial & found guilty then nail him up on a cross, but give him that fair trial first. Emotion doesn't always lead to justice.
i would genuinely like to hear what others alternative reactions to this situation would be other than to thump the bloke. from the limited information i have read so far an argument ensued when the father challenged the bloke,then a fight ,resulting in a single punch which has led to a death. the man was not hunted down and beaten to death as would be my definition of vigilante act,he was punched as a result of his own actions in a situation that was probably over in less than two minutes .
if i had died every time i was punched in the face i would have been dead many times over ,it was an unintentional consequence . i doubt anyone that punches someone has the intention of killing them.
WestyCarl said:
But the kid wasn't being abused, they were in a restaurant having some pics taken of them. The child probably didn't even realise. And for this the family is now going to suffer.
I can imagine parents rage if they catch someone in some sort of act, but taking pics in a restaurant......
if that is the situation fair enough. from the articles linked it looked as though the father grabbed the i-pad to look at what the bloke was doing and found his daughters pictures saved along with sexual images of other kids.I can imagine parents rage if they catch someone in some sort of act, but taking pics in a restaurant......
wc98 said:
if that is the situation fair enough. from the articles linked it looked as though the father grabbed the i-pad to look at what the bloke was doing and found his daughters pictures saved along with sexual images of other kids.
That's the version of events presented by who wasn't there at the time who the Mail dredged up for a quote. His sole qualification for commenting appears to be that he owns a restaurant in the same town. His quote is started with the words 'As I understand it', which might as well be 'A man in the pub told me'. wc98 said:
WestyCarl said:
But the kid wasn't being abused, they were in a restaurant having some pics taken of them. The child probably didn't even realise. And for this the family is now going to suffer.
I can imagine parents rage if they catch someone in some sort of act, but taking pics in a restaurant......
if that is the situation fair enough. from the articles linked it looked as though the father grabbed the i-pad to look at what the bloke was doing and found his daughters pictures saved along with sexual images of other kids.I can imagine parents rage if they catch someone in some sort of act, but taking pics in a restaurant......
wc98 said:
WestyCarl said:
But the kid wasn't being abused, they were in a restaurant having some pics taken of them. The child probably didn't even realise. And for this the family is now going to suffer.
I can imagine parents rage if they catch someone in some sort of act, but taking pics in a restaurant......
if that is the situation fair enough. from the articles linked it looked as though the father grabbed the i-pad to look at what the bloke was doing and found his daughters pictures saved along with sexual images of other kids.I can imagine parents rage if they catch someone in some sort of act, but taking pics in a restaurant......
Burwood said:
wc98 said:
WestyCarl said:
But the kid wasn't being abused, they were in a restaurant having some pics taken of them. The child probably didn't even realise. And for this the family is now going to suffer.
I can imagine parents rage if they catch someone in some sort of act, but taking pics in a restaurant......
if that is the situation fair enough. from the articles linked it looked as though the father grabbed the i-pad to look at what the bloke was doing and found his daughters pictures saved along with sexual images of other kids.I can imagine parents rage if they catch someone in some sort of act, but taking pics in a restaurant......
LucreLout said:
I've killed a few pies in my time, and even the odd kebab, but thankfully no people.
I'm not saying the nonce deserved to die, only that the father shouldn't be charged if that is the end result. You can't expect people to behave rationally and calmly while you film their kids on a laptop full of indecent images of children.
If the laptop has no such images then clearly the father should be charged.
Personally, I'd hope to just confiscate the device and restrain the pervert.... Though I might have difficulty doing that as I'm not good at fighting.
The maximum tariff is probably only a few years (third off for good character, third off for guilty plea etc etc etc). The only reason for that is the prevalence of peados in the cjs and Westminster. It's not justice.
agreed,though i think you will have a hard time convincing those that are talking lynch mobs,vigilantes etc when others are talking about the natural reactions of most fathers .I'm not saying the nonce deserved to die, only that the father shouldn't be charged if that is the end result. You can't expect people to behave rationally and calmly while you film their kids on a laptop full of indecent images of children.
If the laptop has no such images then clearly the father should be charged.
Personally, I'd hope to just confiscate the device and restrain the pervert.... Though I might have difficulty doing that as I'm not good at fighting.
The maximum tariff is probably only a few years (third off for good character, third off for guilty plea etc etc etc). The only reason for that is the prevalence of peados in the cjs and Westminster. It's not justice.
same goes for those stating the full story is not known,so how can the father in this case react like that,going on to invent their own scenario where the laptop is borrowed,wtf ?
my own comments are based solely on the limited information provided in the two links ,if that is the way the situation played out i have no problem with the bloke punching the paedo. there was no intent to kill him ,only to punch him in the face.
Oakey said:
I was actually referring to the people piping up the nonce had yet to be charged with a crime ergo he must be innocent (whilst ignoring the slight issue of him having child porn on his ipad)
The German who might be suspected of stuff had not been charged nor tried nor convicted therefore he WAS innocent. That's how it works. The child porn is alleged not even substantiated, much less proven.
Try him & convict him before passing sentence.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff