Jon Venables back in prison
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
Why shouldn't Thompson, who has been rehabilitated, be allowed to live a normal life? I would not object to an ex convict living next door. Should all ex convicts be made to live in gated enclosures? You either lock up all criminals forever (care to pay for that?) or you release people. Some will integrate back into society. Some won't.
I notice you choose your words very carefully to make light of the question, we can not group everyone under the heading of "criminals or convicts" now to avoid any missunderstanding we are talking about Murderers and Pedos. The person in the thread title we are using as an example.Would you be be happy if a murderer or pedo lived next door to you and your young kids or even lived with you.
If a murderer was released from prison and lived next door I would have no complaint. If an active and unreformed paedophile lived next door, I would be concerned, but not everyone who looks at child porn is an active paedophile or a threat to children. Do you check up on the records of all your neighbours?
Your suggestion of them living with me is childish and ridiculous. You might like to live in a society ruled by emotions, but some of us prefer policy to be made by reason.
Your suggestion of them living with me is childish and ridiculous. You might like to live in a society ruled by emotions, but some of us prefer policy to be made by reason.
Breadvan72 said:
If a murderer was released from prison and lived next door I would have no complaint. If an active and unreformed paedophile lived next door, I would be concerned, but not everyone who looks at child p rn is an active paedophile or a threat to children. Do you check up on the records of all your neighbours?
Your suggestion of them living with me is childish and ridiculous. You might like to live in a society ruled by emotions, but some of us prefer policy to be made by reason.
Its not really childish or rediculous because its about trust if you trust them in the community then you should trust them in your home as the community is an extension of our homes. Your suggestion of them living with me is childish and ridiculous. You might like to live in a society ruled by emotions, but some of us prefer policy to be made by reason.
I know their not all active but this is also about risk, would you risk it. We didnt mention a reformed peadophile living next door. Maybe you would risk it just like the reformed murderer, I prefer not to take the risk.
PAULJ5555 said:
I know their not all active but this is also about risk, would you risk it. We didnt mention a reformed peadophile living next door. Maybe you would risk it just like the reformed murderer, I prefer not to take the risk.
If it's all about risk, then perhaps you could quantify the risk of your children being harmed by a reformed paedophile living next door as opposed to, say, the risk of them being run over on the way to school?br d said:
Jaguar steve said:
Dearie me. Please try to comprehend I'm not threatening you so there's no need to throw your toys around the nursery.
Just felt the need to make you aware of how much of a rabid Daily Mail reading vigilante you presented as and how much offence you are almost certainly causing by having a bit of a laugh about such devastatingly serious crimes.
Give it a rest Steve eh?Just felt the need to make you aware of how much of a rabid Daily Mail reading vigilante you presented as and how much offence you are almost certainly causing by having a bit of a laugh about such devastatingly serious crimes.
For years you've been constantly posting that anybody who moves one letter on their number plate a couple of centimeters must be a drug dealing gangster with an orange slut wife. I hardly think someone with your unhinged perspectives is in any position to talk down to others as rabid Daily Mail reading vigilantes.
deckster said:
PAULJ5555 said:
I know their not all active but this is also about risk, would you risk it. We didnt mention a reformed peadophile living next door. Maybe you would risk it just like the reformed murderer, I prefer not to take the risk.
If it's all about risk, then perhaps you could quantify the risk of your children being harmed by a reformed paedophile living next door as opposed to, say, the risk of them being run over on the way to school?He is not changing the subject, he is talking about realistic risk evaluation. Your child is far more at risk of being run over by a car than he or she is at risk of being the victim of a child abuser. The highest risk of abuse comes from family members. But do carry on and set fire to the local paediatrician's house.
Breadvan72 said:
He is not changing the subject, he is talking about realistic risk evaluation. Your child is far more at risk of being run over by a car than he or she is at risk of being the victim of a child abuser. The highest risk of abuse comes from family members. But do carry on and set fire to the local paediatrician's house.
Some risks in life we have to take even if they are higher than others, even some low risk we avoid taking them if we can.I notice you didnt answer the question just decided to have a cheap shot instead.That last sentance
Some really interesting points here.
In a massive side track however, I wonder how people view Venables now he's out and free to live 'in an eye for an eye, justice kind of way.'
What I mean by this is that in a world where there is no God of any kind, Venables got to take a life in exchange for 10 years. He's now free to move on and live his life...bish bash bosh the end.
I'm a Christian (the sidetrack) I know his judgement (although I don't believe in Hell so it's not pains and torture sorry).
I just wondered how people without a faith rationalise his life - perhaps you don't, is it one of life's bits of unfairness?
Just wondered, please don't turn this into a religious discussion.
In a massive side track however, I wonder how people view Venables now he's out and free to live 'in an eye for an eye, justice kind of way.'
What I mean by this is that in a world where there is no God of any kind, Venables got to take a life in exchange for 10 years. He's now free to move on and live his life...bish bash bosh the end.
I'm a Christian (the sidetrack) I know his judgement (although I don't believe in Hell so it's not pains and torture sorry).
I just wondered how people without a faith rationalise his life - perhaps you don't, is it one of life's bits of unfairness?
Just wondered, please don't turn this into a religious discussion.
Breadvan72 said:
He is not changing the subject, he is talking about realistic risk evaluation. Your child is far more at risk of being run over by a car than he or she is at risk of being the victim of a child abuser. The highest risk of abuse comes from family members. But do carry on and set fire to the local paediatrician's house.
You appear to be suggesting that due to the differing risk profiles of a) his children doing a daily and necessary activity; and b) having a reformed child abuser as a neighbour, he is being unreasonable in his stance on how he would react if b) ocurred.Which is odd given you also stated you would be "concerned".
I think you would agree that "realistic risk evaluation" evolves based on a variety factors, one of which in the child abuser scenario is the permanent vicinity of that person to you?
It's easy to say you would be fine with it etc from the safety of Number 1 BV Towers, but I suspect your risk profile suddenly changes when Mr Kiddy Fiddler moves into Number 2 BV Towers.
When mobs gather the people involved tend to lose their minds a bit, I'm sure it's been well document. I'm also sure that if the identities of the two involved came out mobs would most likely gather and then kill both of them. I'm not getting into a discussion about whether or not they deserve to live or be free or anything as people are more than willing to voice their opinions on that. My point is that several people have then just been taken over by mob rule, committed murder and will most likely be tried as such. Regardless of if you agree with their actions or not, no one is above the law. I'm making an assumption that the cost to society of locking up the greater number will be greater than locking up/anonymising the lesser number (i.e. Thompson and Venables), more lives will then have been ruined as a result of what these two did that day. Protecting their anonymity I don't believe is entirely about protecting them but protecting whoever would kill them from getting caught up in mob rule, committing the crime and suffering the consequences of their actions.
br d said:
Jaguar steve said:
Dearie me. Please try to comprehend I'm not threatening you so there's no need to throw your toys around the nursery.
Just felt the need to make you aware of how much of a rabid Daily Mail reading vigilante you presented as and how much offence you are almost certainly causing by having a bit of a laugh about such devastatingly serious crimes.
Give it a rest Steve eh?Just felt the need to make you aware of how much of a rabid Daily Mail reading vigilante you presented as and how much offence you are almost certainly causing by having a bit of a laugh about such devastatingly serious crimes.
For years you've been constantly posting that anybody who moves one letter on their number plate a couple of centimeters must be a drug dealing gangster with an orange slut wife. I hardly think someone with your unhinged perspectives is in any position to talk down to others as rabid Daily Mail reading vigilantes.
Consider this though: Although there's several light years gap in severity between having an illegal numberplate and decapitating a fellow human being with a train then ripping the remains apart with a heavy calibre pistol both actions stem from the exactly the same fukck the law I'll do just whatever I want instead mindset.
And really? Tear somebody apart with a train then blast the remains into dog meat out of pure vindictive hatred? I don't think even the lower animals would do that.
ciege said:
...
I'm a Christian (the sidetrack) I know his judgement (although I don't believe in Hell so it's not pains and torture sorry).
...
You are not a Christian. Hell is part of Christianity. Look it up in the Bible. If you don't believe in Hell, you have just invented your own religion. Don't worry, it's just as authentic as all the others. I'm a Christian (the sidetrack) I know his judgement (although I don't believe in Hell so it's not pains and torture sorry).
...
Legend83 said:
...
You appear to be suggesting that due to the differing risk profiles of a) his children doing a daily and necessary activity; and b) having a reformed child abuser as a neighbour, he is being unreasonable in his stance on how he would react if b) ocurred.
Which is odd given you also stated you would be "concerned".
...
I said nothing of the sort, Don't distort other poster's comments. It makes you look stupid as well as dishonest.You appear to be suggesting that due to the differing risk profiles of a) his children doing a daily and necessary activity; and b) having a reformed child abuser as a neighbour, he is being unreasonable in his stance on how he would react if b) ocurred.
Which is odd given you also stated you would be "concerned".
...
Breadvan72 said:
He's gay.
My daughters' choice of partners will be for her when she is an adult. I don't live in the nineteenth century.
I'm not on the attack here and I also live in the now, I think you know what I mean with regards to him being reformed. My daughters' choice of partners will be for her when she is an adult. I don't live in the nineteenth century.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Tuesday 28th November 22:41
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff