Lee Rigby's killer wants compo

[bonkbonk]

V6Pushfit said:

This isn't the current situation but to get things clear let me ask you bonkbonk, if that had been your brother or son beheaded on a London street how would you react if you were alone with the killer and he was handcuffed? Have you any idea??

I imagine that I, and most people, would want his blood. But the feelings of the victim are not a good basis for writing laws. That's why we have courts, juries and judges.

[WinstonWolf]

bonkbonk said:

WinstonWolf said:

Laws such as "don't behead people" and don't be such an asshole in prison that the officers need to restrain you for their and other inmates safety"?

I assume you believe prison officers are fully entitled to perform their job without fear of attack or injury?

Of course I do, what I don't believe is that they should be entitled to dish out a bit of extra-judicial punishment when no one's looking. That is not the point of prison. If that has happened (which it may or may not have done in this particular case) then I think there is a problem.

It has been investigated and the officers were found to have acted correctly.

If the violent thug who beheaded an innocent man hadn't kicked off do you think he'd still have his teeth?

Here's a very simple rule to follow. "If you don't want restraining don't be an asshole". A great many prisoners (though not all) seem to manage it and get to keep their teeth.

[Collectingbrass]

WinstonWolf said:

bonkbonk said:

WinstonWolf said:

Then you are a part of all that is wrong with modern society.

What of Lee Rigby's rights?

I see! Perhaps I can ask you a question? Do you support police brutality against all criminals or just who you deem worthy?

Just those who have beheaded an innocent man generally.

Except in this case it was prison officers lawfully retaining an asshole who was kicking off.

I accept in this case Michael Adebolajo was caught committing the terrorist act on camera, but what of Hugh Callaghan, Patrick Hill, Gerard Hunter, Richard McIlkenny, William Power, John Walker, Paul Hill, Gerard Conlon, Patrick Armstrong or Carole Richardson? In the bomb attacks they were found guilty of 26 people were killed including 4 serving military personnel. How should they have been treated? If the violent terrorist murder of one soldier warrants loosing your front teeth, how many teeth is four dead soldiers worth, or twenty two civilians killed, or 182 seriously injured?

I'll save you Googling them if you don't know them, they were the Birmingham 6 and the Guilford 4 respectively. All ten were found not only innocent but the police were found to have fitted them up. How would you treat them now you know this? Why is it different now you know they are innocent?

There is no degree here, you cannot pick and choose based on the heinousity of the crime or their race / creed / colour, if you do we simply descend to their level.

[Collectingbrass]

WinstonWolf said:

It has been investigated and the officers were found to have acted correctly no criminal case to answer.

Fixed that for you, again.

WinstonWolf said:

Here's a very simple rule to follow. "If you don't want restraining don't be an asshole". A great many prisoners (though not all) seem to manage it and get to keep their teeth.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but here's another two:

First, if you don't want to be sued for compensation by a violent thug handle him properly, if necessary lock him in his cell and come back when he is calmer.

Secondly, if you're not sure your members or institution did handle him properly, don't leak the story to the press and rely on public outrage to get your members or institution off the hook.

Edited by Collectingbrass on Friday 11th December 17:30

[WinstonWolf]

Collectingbrass said:

WinstonWolf said:

bonkbonk said:

WinstonWolf said:

Then you are a part of all that is wrong with modern society.

What of Lee Rigby's rights?

I see! Perhaps I can ask you a question? Do you support police brutality against all criminals or just who you deem worthy?

Just those who have beheaded an innocent man generally.

Except in this case it was prison officers lawfully retaining an asshole who was kicking off.

I accept in this case Michael Adebolajo was caught committing the terrorist act on camera, but what of Hugh Callaghan, Patrick Hill, Gerard Hunter, Richard McIlkenny, William Power, John Walker, Paul Hill, Gerard Conlon, Patrick Armstrong or Carole Richardson? In the bomb attacks they were found guilty of 26 people were killed including 4 serving military personnel. How should they have been treated? If the violent terrorist murder of one soldier warrants loosing your front teeth, how many teeth is four dead soldiers worth, or twenty two civilians killed, or 182 seriously injured?

I'll save you Googling them if you don't know them, they were the Birmingham 6 and the Guilford 4 respectively. All ten were found not only innocent but the police were found to have fitted them up. How would you treat them now you know this? Why is it different now you know they are innocent?

There is no degree here, you cannot pick and choose based on the heinousity of the crime or their race / creed / colour, if you do we simply descend to their level.

None of which relates to the use of lawful restraint of a violent prisoner.

I assume you also believe prison officers should be free to perform their duties without fear of attack? They should be able to enter the workplace knowing they'll return home safely to their loved ones at the end of their shift.

Restraint is necessary in the case of a violent prisoner, if the offender is injured they have to accept the responsibility for their actions.

Don't want restraining, don't be an asshole.

[anonymous-user]

bonkbonk said:

I imagine that I, and most people, would want his blood. But the feelings of the victim are not a good basis for writing laws. That's why we have courts, juries and judges.

In that case if you wanted his blood, can you extend that to what you would wish someone else to do if they were sat with the killer instead? And then extend that to what you would wish anyone to do if they were with the killer? Then come back from all that a bit, and the killer just gets a couple of teeth knocked out in prison how would you feel then, glad or empathy ie wanting him to be able to seek redress and promoting that?

If Lee Rigby was your relative or friend you should be glad, although sad it was just only a scuffle and teeth.

[WinstonWolf]

Collectingbrass said:

WinstonWolf said:

It has been investigated and the officers were found to have acted correctly.

Fixed that for you, again.

No, you've completely fked it up...

How would *you personally* deal with a violent offender who refuses to comply?

Restraint is necessary for the safety of everyone.

[Collectingbrass]

drivetrain said:

Jeremy, is that you?

Dan Jarvis is more accurate, if you must compare me to members of the Labour party

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/...

[Collectingbrass]

WinstonWolf said:

Collectingbrass said:

WinstonWolf said:

bonkbonk said:

WinstonWolf said:

Then you are a part of all that is wrong with modern society.

What of Lee Rigby's rights?

I see! Perhaps I can ask you a question? Do you support police brutality against all criminals or just who you deem worthy?

Just those who have beheaded an innocent man generally.

Except in this case it was prison officers lawfully retaining an asshole who was kicking off.

I accept in this case Michael Adebolajo was caught committing the terrorist act on camera, but what of Hugh Callaghan, Patrick Hill, Gerard Hunter, Richard McIlkenny, William Power, John Walker, Paul Hill, Gerard Conlon, Patrick Armstrong or Carole Richardson? In the bomb attacks they were found guilty of 26 people were killed including 4 serving military personnel. How should they have been treated? If the violent terrorist murder of one soldier warrants loosing your front teeth, how many teeth is four dead soldiers worth, or twenty two civilians killed, or 182 seriously injured?

I'll save you Googling them if you don't know them, they were the Birmingham 6 and the Guilford 4 respectively. All ten were found not only innocent but the police were found to have fitted them up. How would you treat them now you know this? Why is it different now you know they are innocent?

There is no degree here, you cannot pick and choose based on the heinousity of the crime or their race / creed / colour, if you do we simply descend to their level.

None of which relates to the use of lawful restraint of a violent prisoner.

I assume you also believe prison officers should be free to perform their duties without fear of attack? They should be able to enter the workplace knowing they'll return home safely to their loved ones at the end of their shift.

Restraint is necessary in the case of a violent prisoner, if the offender is injured they have to accept the responsibility for their actions.

Don't want restraining, don't be an asshole.

Yes it does, you are saying that the nature of his crime makes it acceptable for that restraint to cause him harm for which no recompense is due. I am asking you whether you would apply the same standard to people who were wrongly found guilty of equally terrible crimes?

[WinstonWolf]

Collectingbrass said:

WinstonWolf said:

Collectingbrass said:

WinstonWolf said:

bonkbonk said:

WinstonWolf said:

Then you are a part of all that is wrong with modern society.

What of Lee Rigby's rights?

I see! Perhaps I can ask you a question? Do you support police brutality against all criminals or just who you deem worthy?

Just those who have beheaded an innocent man generally.

Except in this case it was prison officers lawfully retaining an asshole who was kicking off.

I accept in this case Michael Adebolajo was caught committing the terrorist act on camera, but what of Hugh Callaghan, Patrick Hill, Gerard Hunter, Richard McIlkenny, William Power, John Walker, Paul Hill, Gerard Conlon, Patrick Armstrong or Carole Richardson? In the bomb attacks they were found guilty of 26 people were killed including 4 serving military personnel. How should they have been treated? If the violent terrorist murder of one soldier warrants loosing your front teeth, how many teeth is four dead soldiers worth, or twenty two civilians killed, or 182 seriously injured?

I'll save you Googling them if you don't know them, they were the Birmingham 6 and the Guilford 4 respectively. All ten were found not only innocent but the police were found to have fitted them up. How would you treat them now you know this? Why is it different now you know they are innocent?

There is no degree here, you cannot pick and choose based on the heinousity of the crime or their race / creed / colour, if you do we simply descend to their level.

None of which relates to the use of lawful restraint of a violent prisoner.

I assume you also believe prison officers should be free to perform their duties without fear of attack? They should be able to enter the workplace knowing they'll return home safely to their loved ones at the end of their shift.

Restraint is necessary in the case of a violent prisoner, if the offender is injured they have to accept the responsibility for their actions.

Don't want restraining, don't be an asshole.

Yes it does, you are saying that the nature of his crime makes it acceptable for that restraint to cause him harm for which no recompense is due. I am asking you whether you would apply the same standard to people who were wrongly found guilty of equally terrible crimes?

If they were kicking off in prison then it's an unequivocal yes.

Don't want restraining, don't be an asshole.

Do you accept that restraint is a necessary technique for handling violent prisoners?

[Collectingbrass]

WinstonWolf said:

Collectingbrass said:

WinstonWolf said:

It has been investigated and the officers were found to have acted correctly.

Fixed that for you, again.

No, you've completely fked it up...

How would *you personally* deal with a violent offender who refuses to comply?

Restraint is necessary for the safety of everyone.

Please provide your source for the statement that the officers acted correctly. All I can find is that they have no criminal case to answer; the two statements are not the same thing at all.

As to how I would deal with a violent offender who refuses to comply; it would be the way I had been trained and I would not blab to the press when I get sued in the hope public outrage made the case go away. I would take responsibility for my actions whether negligent or not.

[WinstonWolf]

Collectingbrass said:

WinstonWolf said:

Collectingbrass said:

WinstonWolf said:

It has been investigated and the officers were found to have acted correctly.

Fixed that for you, again.

No, you've completely fked it up...

How would *you personally* deal with a violent offender who refuses to comply?

Restraint is necessary for the safety of everyone.

Please provide your source for the statement that the officers acted correctly. All I can find is that they have no criminal case to answer; the two statements are not the same thing at all.

As to how I would deal with a violent offender who refuses to comply; it would be the way I had been trained and I would not blab to the press when I get sued in the hope public outrage made the case go away. I would take responsibility for my actions whether negligent or not.

So in this case you would also use restraint as that's what prison officers are trained to do?

You have a responsibility for the safety of the other prisoners and your colleagues. The prisoner is getting free, what do *you* do to protect your colleagues and the other inmates?

[Collectingbrass]

WinstonWolf said:

So in this case you would also use restraint as that's what prison officers are trained to do?

Of course I would use the restraints I had been trained and authorised to use, why wouldn’t I?

WinstonWolf said:

You have a responsibility for the safety of the other prisoners and your colleagues. The prisoner is getting free, what do *you* do to protect your colleagues and the other inmates?

Everything I am legally entitled and trained to do, including calling for armed police support and cleaning up after they've shot him if necessary. Again, why wouldn’t I?

Like you I don't have an issue with the use of proper restraint techniques or more forceful legal control responses; where I have the issue is in the improper use of that force, denying the injured person their due as a result of that improper use of force because they committed a heinous crime and trying to engender a public outcry to protect those who *may* have been negligent because the injured person is “scum”.

[groucho]

oyster said:

Like ISIS, the Taliban and Al Qaeda do you mean?

We should be more like them, is that what you want?


Or should we maintain a moral superiority?

If we are ever going to win this battle, we have to be. It is a sad truth, but will never happen at the moment. Hence, we will lose.

[Digby]

I don't really care what the outcome is, the fact is the has lost some teeth and that means several million people in the UK got their wish.

[DocJock]

Collectingbrass said:

WinstonWolf said:

So in this case you would also use restraint as that's what prison officers are trained to do?

Of course I would use the restraints I had been trained and authorised to use, why wouldn’t I?

WinstonWolf said:

You have a responsibility for the safety of the other prisoners and your colleagues. The prisoner is getting free, what do *you* do to protect your colleagues and the other inmates?

Everything I am legally entitled and trained to do, including calling for armed police support and cleaning up after they've shot him if necessary. Again, why wouldn’t I?

Like you I don't have an issue with the use of proper restraint techniques or more forceful legal control responses; where I have the issue is in the improper use of that force, denying the injured person their due as a result of that improper use of force because they committed a heinous crime and trying to engender a public outcry to protect those who *may* have been negligent because the injured person is “scum”.

That is an extremely glib response which makes light of the dangers of interacting with a violent person. The injuries in this case were suffered when FIVE prison officers were attempting to do just this with an uncooperative, violent prisoner.

[WinstonWolf]

DocJock said:

Collectingbrass said:

WinstonWolf said:

So in this case you would also use restraint as that's what prison officers are trained to do?

Of course I would use the restraints I had been trained and authorised to use, why wouldn’t I?

WinstonWolf said:

You have a responsibility for the safety of the other prisoners and your colleagues. The prisoner is getting free, what do *you* do to protect your colleagues and the other inmates?

Everything I am legally entitled and trained to do, including calling for armed police support and cleaning up after they've shot him if necessary. Again, why wouldn’t I?

Like you I don't have an issue with the use of proper restraint techniques or more forceful legal control responses; where I have the issue is in the improper use of that force, denying the injured person their due as a result of that improper use of force because they committed a heinous crime and trying to engender a public outcry to protect those who *may* have been negligent because the injured person is “scum”.

That is an extremely glib response which makes light of the dangers of interacting with a violent person. The injuries in this case were suffered when FIVE prison officers were attempting to do just this with an uncooperative, violent prisoner.

He wants a murder to have his due, I suspect 99% of the law abiding public would quite happily allow him his 'due'.

[DragsterRR]

Couldn't we just leave 2 pound coins under his pillow?

[dudleybloke]

DragsterRR said:

Couldn't we just leave 2 pound coins under his pillow?

£2.30!

[Collectingbrass]

WinstonWolf said:

He wants a murder to have his due, I suspect 99% of the law abiding public would quite happily allow him his 'due'.

The murderer has got his due already, he's been tried, found guilty and sentenced under the full extent of the law. No doubt if he is found to have assaulted the officers who restrained him he'll get done for that too, as he should.

What I want is for everyone to be treated fairly in front Justice, regardless of who they are or what they have previously done.



In June 2013 a new bill for capital punishment in England and Wales was introduced. This Bill has been withdrawn and will not progress any further. Lee Rigby was killed in May 2013. If 99% of the public wanted the death penalty reinstating this bill would be progressing.