MooseBreath Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 15 years seems very lenient for a man who has proven beyond doubt that he has nothing but evil to offer society. What possible justification could there be for ever letting him out?
Captain... Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 15 years seems very lenient for a man who has proven beyond doubt that he has nothing but evil to offer society. What possible justification could there be for ever letting him out? Faith in humanity and the ability for a person to change his ways?
MooseBreath Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 Faith in humanity and the ability for a person to change his ways? Yep. They were probably the reasons given for his release after seven years in jail for when he repeatedly stabbed his ex-partner and her mother with a kitchen knife. Had he changed his ways? I think we know the answer to that.
Guest Bilo Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 Faith in humanity and the ability for a person to change his ways? Not so sure that's the case with this man given the details that have emerged since the verdict. He's clearly a dangerous, violent man with a toxic blend of arrogance and rank stupidity. As for the sentence, I'm not so sure it is overly lenient. Firstly, he is not a murderer in the legal sense of the word. Manslaughter has always carried significantly lighter sentences than murder and this case was always going to be the same. Secondly, the sentence is for a MINIMUM of 15 years. There's every chance that his past record of violence will be taken into account and a parole officer in 2028 will block his release. If not, I agree that 15 years would be too short a sentence for this crime from a moral, if not legal, perspective. He killed 6 of his kids, tried to bin the blame on his ex and some friends, has showed little or no remorse and is clearly of zero value to society.
Captain... Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 Yep. They were probably the reasons given for his release after seven years in jail for when he repeatedly stabbed his ex-partner and her mother with a kitchen knife. Had he changed his ways? I think we know the answer to that. I'm not saying he will change, I don't think he will, I think he is scum of the highest order, but he can change, he has, like all human beings, the capacity to become a better person, that is why he has been given a minimum 15 year sentence, and not been executed.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 A psychopath, according to the missus. She's paid to know about this sort of stuff
Manwell Pablo Posted 4 April 2013 Author Posted 4 April 2013 I'm not saying he will change, I don't think he will, I think he is scum of the highest order, but I feel the need to argue so I am going to play Devils Advocate for the sake of it Fixed for you mate!
BoneDog Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 What do we reckon about this chap then? Life no parole? I'm not a big fan of executions, but in certain cases such as this one, it improves the world. Somebody will probably dispose of him in prison. I only found out two days ago about his sick crime in 1978. Disgusting horror of a man who should never have been released from prison after he decided to do what he did back then. A 17 year old girl wrote him a letter to say she didn't want to go out with him anymore, so he crept into her house with the intention of killing her, saw her sleeping and then proceeded to stab her 13 times. That was premeditated and the man is obviously a psycho. How did he ever get released after that? He'd been walking the streets since 1985 after repeatedly stabbing that girl and her mother.
Zingari Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 They seem to be making a big thing in the media about how he is the "product of the welfare state" How come they aren't portraying him as the product of a military background?
Webbo Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 They seem to be making a big thing in the media about how he is the "product of the welfare state" How come they aren't portraying him as the product of a military background? The reason he did the crime has part of a scam to get his kids back so that he could claim the benefits that came with them. He wouldn't have had 17 kids if he had to pay for them out of his own pocket.
Zingari Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 The reason he did the crime has part of a scam to get his kids back so that he could claim the benefits that came with them. He wouldn't have had 17 kids if he had to pay for them out of his own pocket. Maybe he became the sort of psychotic character due to his military background though. I Blaming the welfare state( which some newspapers seem to be implying) for his behaviour, either for his morals or for his violence is fookin ludicrous .
BoneDog Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 The reason he did the crime has part of a scam to get his kids back so that he could claim the benefits that came with them. He wouldn't have had 17 kids if he had to pay for them out of his own pocket. He was a psycho back in 1978 though.
Webbo Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush, we're all individuals and we're all responsible for our own actions but there is a section of society who seem to think they can do as they like and someone else can pick up the tab.
Webbo Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 He was a psycho back in 1978 though. He didn't have 17 kids in 1978 though. If they hadn't been his meal ticket they wouldn't have been born in the first place.
Captain... Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 Fixed for you mate! Not arguing with anyone, moose asked a question I suggested an answer, you must get into a lot of pointless arguments it you think answering a question is arguing.
Manwell Pablo Posted 4 April 2013 Author Posted 4 April 2013 They seem to be making a big thing in the media about how he is the "product of the welfare state" How come they aren't portraying him as the product of a military background? There is no secret that those from a military background are more likely to committ violent crime, the governmant produced statistics last month stating this it's not something they hide from. In this case both infleunces have clearly played a part, along with others, they aren't going to name everyone.
ADK Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 The guy clearly is a complete psychopath, using him as a yardstick for anything is pointless. You might aswell argue anyone with a moustache should be locked up.
Manwell Pablo Posted 4 April 2013 Author Posted 4 April 2013 Not arguing with anyone, moose asked a question I suggested an answer, you must get into a lot of pointless arguments it you think answering a question is arguing. He asked a quite blatent rhetorical question which you argued against you mean (pointless arguement begins)
BoneDog Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 He didn't have 17 kids in 1978 though. If they hadn't been his meal ticket they wouldn't have been born in the first place. After hearing about the 1978 incident it's made me think that this fire wasn't anything to do with benefits. It seems more like he was trying to get 'revenge' on that woman who walked out on them recently, just like he did in '78.
Reynard Bleu Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 Maybe he became the sort of psychotic character due to his military background though. That depends on his experiences in the military. He maye even have been a nutter before he joined then military. Some vets are very fecked up when they leave service, usually because of the difficult experiences they have had, The vast majority of vets will have still endured those experiences and not gone on to kill/commit whatever crime. There's too many ex-army/service guys who find themselves on the wrong side of the law that is true, but not everyone who has had a tough time in service comes out a murderer.
Zingari Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 There is no secret that those from a military background are more likely to committ violent crime, the governmant produced statistics last month stating this it's not something they hide from. In this case both infleunces have clearly played a part, along with others, they aren't going to name everyone. They may not be hiding the fact , but they sure ain't giving it the same prominence as the fact that he's a welfare scrounger
Webbo Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 After hearing about the 1978 incident it's made me think that this fire wasn't anything to do with benefits. It seems more like he was trying to get 'revenge' on that woman who walked out on them recently, just like he did in '78. By murdering the kids he had with another woman?
Zingari Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 That depends on his experiences in the military. He maye even have been a nutter before he joined then military. Some vets are very fecked up when they leave service, usually because of the difficult experiences they have had, The vast majority of vets will have still endured those experiences and not gone on to kill/commit whatever crime. There's too many ex-army/service guys who find themselves on the wrong side of the law that is true, but not everyone who has had a tough time in service comes out a murderer. Exactly , and not every welfare claimant is seeking to soak the country by having loads of kids . The point I was trying to make is that both connections are equally irrelevant .
Captain... Posted 4 April 2013 Posted 4 April 2013 He asked a quite blatent rhetorical question which you argued against you mean (pointless arguement begins) Are you going to contribute to this discussion or just troll me like last time? How would you answer Moosey's question, it is not really rhetorical, he wants to know how he has been allowed even a chance of freedom. Do you agree with that? Do you think he should be locked up for life? Do you want to have a discussion or just troll?
Manwell Pablo Posted 4 April 2013 Author Posted 4 April 2013 Are you going to contribute to this discussion or just troll me like last time? How would you answer Moosey's question, it is not really rhetorical, he wants to know how he has been allowed even a chance of freedom. Do you agree with that? Do you think he should be locked up for life? Do you want to have a discussion or just troll? Contribute? I started this thread! That's not even the post of yours I ripped off is it? keep up. The real quesion is, ARE YOU GOING TO CONTRIBUTE, by stop being tiresome and discuss the brilliantness of a team full of Phillpotts, a dream this man has ended, this alone is a reason he should never be released.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.