Discussion:
Gaoled for a tweet identifying Venables
Add Reply
The Todal
2019-08-08 17:32:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Several previous offenders managed to persuade the courts to give a
suspended sentence, but not this time, fortunately.

This is what happens when an idiot defies an injunction because he
thinks Twitter gives him total freedom of speech.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Wixted-Approved-1.8.19-v.1.pdf
Grikboxer®™
2019-08-08 18:21:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 18:32:21 +0100, Jon The Todal, a notorious semite
Post by The Todal
Several previous offenders managed to persuade the courts to give a
suspended sentence, but not this time, fortunately.
This is what happens when an idiot defies an injunction because he
thinks Twitter gives him total freedom of speech.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Wixted-Approved-1.8.19-v.1.pdf
Why does a murderous scumbag like Venables deserve protection?

Will you subpeople stop at NOTHING to undermine your host countries???
Col
2019-08-08 18:33:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikboxer®™
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 18:32:21 +0100, Jon The Todal, a notorious semite
Post by The Todal
Several previous offenders managed to persuade the courts to give a
suspended sentence, but not this time, fortunately.
This is what happens when an idiot defies an injunction because he
thinks Twitter gives him total freedom of speech.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Wixted-Approved-1.8.19-v.1.pdf
Why does a murderous scumbag like Venables deserve protection?
Will you subpeople stop at NOTHING to undermine your host countries???
Because in a so-called 'civilised' country you cannot have lynch mobs &
vigilante gangs roaming the streets dishing out their own form of
'justice' as they see fit, that's why.
--
Col
Grikboxer®™
2019-08-08 19:30:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 18:32:21 +0100, Jon The Todal, a notorious semite
Post by The Todal
Several previous offenders managed to persuade the courts to give a
suspended sentence, but not this time, fortunately.
This is what happens when an idiot defies an injunction because he
thinks Twitter gives him total freedom of speech.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Wixted-Approved-1.8.19-v.1.pdf
Why does a murderous scumbag like Venables deserve protection?
Will you subpeople stop at NOTHING to undermine your host countries???
Because in a so-called 'civilised' country you cannot have lynch mobs &
vigilante gangs roaming the streets dishing out their own form of
'justice' as they see fit, that's why.
In a so-called 'civilised' country you cannot have 10-year olds
murdering little kiddies. If they do, they should expect nothing
less.
Col
2019-08-08 20:05:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 18:32:21 +0100, Jon The Todal, a notorious semite
Post by The Todal
Several previous offenders managed to persuade the courts to give a
suspended sentence, but not this time, fortunately.
This is what happens when an idiot defies an injunction because he
thinks Twitter gives him total freedom of speech.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Wixted-Approved-1.8.19-v.1.pdf
Why does a murderous scumbag like Venables deserve protection?
Will you subpeople stop at NOTHING to undermine your host countries???
Because in a so-called 'civilised' country you cannot have lynch mobs &
vigilante gangs roaming the streets dishing out their own form of
'justice' as they see fit, that's why.
In a so-called 'civilised' country you cannot have 10-year olds
murdering little kiddies. If they do, they should expect nothing
less.
So do you think that vigilante justice is acceptable for all crimes or
just for 'murdering little kiddies'?
--
Col
Grikboxer®™
2019-08-08 20:22:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 18:32:21 +0100, Jon The Todal, a notorious semite
Post by The Todal
Several previous offenders managed to persuade the courts to give a
suspended sentence, but not this time, fortunately.
This is what happens when an idiot defies an injunction because he
thinks Twitter gives him total freedom of speech.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Wixted-Approved-1.8.19-v.1.pdf
Why does a murderous scumbag like Venables deserve protection?
Will you subpeople stop at NOTHING to undermine your host countries???
Because in a so-called 'civilised' country you cannot have lynch mobs &
vigilante gangs roaming the streets dishing out their own form of
'justice' as they see fit, that's why.
In a so-called 'civilised' country you cannot have 10-year olds
murdering little kiddies. If they do, they should expect nothing
less.
So do you think that vigilante justice is acceptable for all crimes or
just for 'murdering little kiddies'?
It's not necessary for all crimes. Often the criminal justice system
does what it's supposed to do. In this case it didn't. That's when
alternative procedures are acceptable.
Loose Cannon
2019-08-08 20:29:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikboxer®™
It's not necessary for all crimes. Often the criminal justice system
does what it's supposed to do. In this case it didn't.
Neither in your case. But wait, you sick pervert... just WAIT.
Col
2019-08-08 20:41:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 18:32:21 +0100, Jon The Todal, a notorious semite
Post by The Todal
Several previous offenders managed to persuade the courts to give a
suspended sentence, but not this time, fortunately.
This is what happens when an idiot defies an injunction because he
thinks Twitter gives him total freedom of speech.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Wixted-Approved-1.8.19-v.1.pdf
Why does a murderous scumbag like Venables deserve protection?
Will you subpeople stop at NOTHING to undermine your host countries???
Because in a so-called 'civilised' country you cannot have lynch mobs &
vigilante gangs roaming the streets dishing out their own form of
'justice' as they see fit, that's why.
In a so-called 'civilised' country you cannot have 10-year olds
murdering little kiddies. If they do, they should expect nothing
less.
So do you think that vigilante justice is acceptable for all crimes or
just for 'murdering little kiddies'?
It's not necessary for all crimes. Often the criminal justice system
does what it's supposed to do. In this case it didn't. That's when
alternative procedures are acceptable.
The whole point of having a criminal justice system in the first place
is to have a measured approach to crime & punishment.

What if you burgle my house and I decide that whatever sentence you
receive isn't enough? Is it OK for me to go and beat you up?
After all as far as I'm concerned the criminal justice system didn't do
what it was supposed to do so alternative procedures are acceptable....
--
Col
Grikboxer®™
2019-08-08 22:18:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 18:32:21 +0100, Jon The Todal, a notorious semite
Post by The Todal
Several previous offenders managed to persuade the courts to give a
suspended sentence, but not this time, fortunately.
This is what happens when an idiot defies an injunction because he
thinks Twitter gives him total freedom of speech.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Wixted-Approved-1.8.19-v.1.pdf
Why does a murderous scumbag like Venables deserve protection?
Will you subpeople stop at NOTHING to undermine your host countries???
Because in a so-called 'civilised' country you cannot have lynch mobs &
vigilante gangs roaming the streets dishing out their own form of
'justice' as they see fit, that's why.
In a so-called 'civilised' country you cannot have 10-year olds
murdering little kiddies. If they do, they should expect nothing
less.
So do you think that vigilante justice is acceptable for all crimes or
just for 'murdering little kiddies'?
It's not necessary for all crimes. Often the criminal justice system
does what it's supposed to do. In this case it didn't. That's when
alternative procedures are acceptable.
The whole point of having a criminal justice system in the first place
is to have a measured approach to crime & punishment.
Not measured, which sounds like wishy-washy progressive...the point is
to have an effective deterrent approach.
Post by Col
What if you burgle my house and I decide that whatever sentence you
receive isn't enough? Is it OK for me to go and beat you up?
After all as far as I'm concerned the criminal justice system didn't do
what it was supposed to do so alternative procedures are acceptable....
Was your burglary in all the national newspapers? Was it considered a
particularly heinous crime?
Peeler
2019-08-08 22:35:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 15:18:10 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikboxer®™
Not measured, which sounds like wishy-washy progressive...the point is
to have an effective deterrent approach.
Post by Col
What if you burgle my house and I decide that whatever sentence you
receive isn't enough? Is it OK for me to go and beat you up?
After all as far as I'm concerned the criminal justice system didn't do
what it was supposed to do so alternative procedures are acceptable....
Was your burglary in all the national newspapers? Was it considered a
particularly heinous crime?
Darn, did you find another fool who is doing you psychopathic swine the
favour of having a retarded "discussion" with you, psychopath? Guess what
will come of it! Just take a guess! LOL
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"A lowering of the age of consent to reflect the rate at which today's
youngsters 'mature'."
MID: <gKNUE.1374684$***@usenetxs.com>
Col
2019-08-09 17:20:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 18:32:21 +0100, Jon The Todal, a notorious semite
Post by The Todal
Several previous offenders managed to persuade the courts to give a
suspended sentence, but not this time, fortunately.
This is what happens when an idiot defies an injunction because he
thinks Twitter gives him total freedom of speech.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Wixted-Approved-1.8.19-v.1.pdf
Why does a murderous scumbag like Venables deserve protection?
Will you subpeople stop at NOTHING to undermine your host countries???
Because in a so-called 'civilised' country you cannot have lynch mobs &
vigilante gangs roaming the streets dishing out their own form of
'justice' as they see fit, that's why.
In a so-called 'civilised' country you cannot have 10-year olds
murdering little kiddies. If they do, they should expect nothing
less.
So do you think that vigilante justice is acceptable for all crimes or
just for 'murdering little kiddies'?
It's not necessary for all crimes. Often the criminal justice system
does what it's supposed to do. In this case it didn't. That's when
alternative procedures are acceptable.
The whole point of having a criminal justice system in the first place
is to have a measured approach to crime & punishment.
Not measured, which sounds like wishy-washy progressive...the point is
to have an effective deterrent approach.
'Measured' as in proportionate to the nature of the crime, surely you
would agree that is a fundamental part of the justice system? But of
course as you say being an effective deterrent is also of fundamental
importance.
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
What if you burgle my house and I decide that whatever sentence you
receive isn't enough? Is it OK for me to go and beat you up?
After all as far as I'm concerned the criminal justice system didn't do
what it was supposed to do so alternative procedures are acceptable....
Was your burglary in all the national newspapers? Was it considered a
particularly heinous crime?
I might consider it to be 'heinous', yes. The burglar may have taken
items of a very personal nature to me and irreplaceable. I might feel
violated and to add insult to injury I then find he has been given a
mere 'slap on the wrist' rather than a proper punishment. Under those
circumstances would it be OK for me to seek some kind of retribution
myself? I don't see how you you can make a distinction between crimes.
Either you think it's OK to take the law into your own hands, or you don't.
--
Col
Grikboxer®™
2019-08-09 18:12:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 18:32:21 +0100, Jon The Todal, a notorious semite
Post by The Todal
Several previous offenders managed to persuade the courts to give a
suspended sentence, but not this time, fortunately.
This is what happens when an idiot defies an injunction because he
thinks Twitter gives him total freedom of speech.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Wixted-Approved-1.8.19-v.1.pdf
Why does a murderous scumbag like Venables deserve protection?
Will you subpeople stop at NOTHING to undermine your host countries???
Because in a so-called 'civilised' country you cannot have lynch mobs &
vigilante gangs roaming the streets dishing out their own form of
'justice' as they see fit, that's why.
In a so-called 'civilised' country you cannot have 10-year olds
murdering little kiddies. If they do, they should expect nothing
less.
So do you think that vigilante justice is acceptable for all crimes or
just for 'murdering little kiddies'?
It's not necessary for all crimes. Often the criminal justice system
does what it's supposed to do. In this case it didn't. That's when
alternative procedures are acceptable.
The whole point of having a criminal justice system in the first place
is to have a measured approach to crime & punishment.
Not measured, which sounds like wishy-washy progressive...the point is
to have an effective deterrent approach.
'Measured' as in proportionate to the nature of the crime, surely you
would agree that is a fundamental part of the justice system? But of
course as you say being an effective deterrent is also of fundamental
importance.
So what would you call proportionate to the murder of a two-year old
by a couple of ten-year olds?
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
What if you burgle my house and I decide that whatever sentence you
receive isn't enough? Is it OK for me to go and beat you up?
After all as far as I'm concerned the criminal justice system didn't do
what it was supposed to do so alternative procedures are acceptable....
Was your burglary in all the national newspapers? Was it considered a
particularly heinous crime?
I might consider it to be 'heinous', yes. The burglar may have taken
items of a very personal nature to me and irreplaceable. I might feel
violated and to add insult to injury I then find he has been given a
mere 'slap on the wrist' rather than a proper punishment. Under those
circumstances would it be OK for me to seek some kind of retribution
myself? I don't see how you you can make a distinction between crimes.
Either you think it's OK to take the law into your own hands, or you don't.
I don't see how you can fail to make a distinction between crimes. You
might think your burglary was a heinous crime; it's unlikely anyone
else will have even heard of it. Quite unlike the Jamie Bulger
murder, which was universally condemned.
Col
2019-08-09 19:07:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
'Measured' as in proportionate to the nature of the crime, surely you
would agree that is a fundamental part of the justice system? But of
course as you say being an effective deterrent is also of fundamental
importance.
So what would you call proportionate to the murder of a two-year old
by a couple of ten-year olds?
Not being subjected to the action of lynch mobs, that's for sure.
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
I might consider it to be 'heinous', yes. The burglar may have taken
items of a very personal nature to me and irreplaceable. I might feel
violated and to add insult to injury I then find he has been given a
mere 'slap on the wrist' rather than a proper punishment. Under those
circumstances would it be OK for me to seek some kind of retribution
myself? I don't see how you you can make a distinction between crimes.
Either you think it's OK to take the law into your own hands, or you don't.
I don't see how you can fail to make a distinction between crimes. You
might think your burglary was a heinous crime; it's unlikely anyone
else will have even heard of it. Quite unlike the Jamie Bulger
murder, which was universally condemned.
So vigilante action is OK if it's all over the media and the tabloids
are foaming at the mouth over it?
--
Col
Grikboxer®™
2019-08-09 19:50:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
'Measured' as in proportionate to the nature of the crime, surely you
would agree that is a fundamental part of the justice system? But of
course as you say being an effective deterrent is also of fundamental
importance.
So what would you call proportionate to the murder of a two-year old
by a couple of ten-year olds?
Not being subjected to the action of lynch mobs, that's for sure.
There haven't been any. Several people have revealed Venables' true
identity, is all.
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
I might consider it to be 'heinous', yes. The burglar may have taken
items of a very personal nature to me and irreplaceable. I might feel
violated and to add insult to injury I then find he has been given a
mere 'slap on the wrist' rather than a proper punishment. Under those
circumstances would it be OK for me to seek some kind of retribution
myself? I don't see how you you can make a distinction between crimes.
Either you think it's OK to take the law into your own hands, or you don't.
I don't see how you can fail to make a distinction between crimes. You
might think your burglary was a heinous crime; it's unlikely anyone
else will have even heard of it. Quite unlike the Jamie Bulger
murder, which was universally condemned.
So vigilante action is OK if it's all over the media and the tabloids
are foaming at the mouth over it?
Only when the criminal justice system fails us...as it has in this
instance.

As former Prime Minister John Major once said, "We should condemn more
and try to understand less."
Peeler
2019-08-09 21:08:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 12:50:41 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikboxer®™
Only when the criminal justice system fails us...as it has in this
instance.
Says WHO? YOUUU? A proven sexual cripple, psychopath and pedophile? LOL
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic answering a question whether there
is any meaningful debate to lower the age of consent:
"If there isn't, there should be."
MID: <ZAMUE.174724$***@usenetxs.com>
JNugent
2019-08-10 00:52:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
'Measured' as in proportionate to the nature of the crime, surely you
would agree that is a fundamental part of the justice system? But of
course as you say being an effective deterrent is also of fundamental
importance.
So what would you call proportionate to the murder of a two-year old
by a couple of ten-year olds?
Not being subjected to the action of lynch mobs, that's for sure.
There haven't been any. Several people have revealed Venables' true
identity, is all.
???

His true identity is not protected. It's "Venables".
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
I might consider it to be 'heinous', yes. The burglar may have taken
items of a very personal nature to me and irreplaceable. I might feel
violated and to add insult to injury I then find he has been given a
mere 'slap on the wrist' rather than a proper punishment. Under those
circumstances would it be OK for me to seek some kind of retribution
myself? I don't see how you you can make a distinction between crimes.
Either you think it's OK to take the law into your own hands, or you don't.
I don't see how you can fail to make a distinction between crimes. You
might think your burglary was a heinous crime; it's unlikely anyone
else will have even heard of it. Quite unlike the Jamie Bulger
murder, which was universally condemned.
So vigilante action is OK if it's all over the media and the tabloids
are foaming at the mouth over it?
Only when the criminal justice system fails us...as it has in this
instance.
As former Prime Minister John Major once said, "We should condemn more
and try to understand less."
Grikboxer®™
2019-08-10 11:43:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
'Measured' as in proportionate to the nature of the crime, surely you
would agree that is a fundamental part of the justice system? But of
course as you say being an effective deterrent is also of fundamental
importance.
So what would you call proportionate to the murder of a two-year old
by a couple of ten-year olds?
Not being subjected to the action of lynch mobs, that's for sure.
There haven't been any. Several people have revealed Venables' true
identity, is all.
???
His true identity is not protected. It's "Venables".
???

I cannot use his assumed name here so I refer to him as 'Venables'.
JNugent
2019-08-10 12:30:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
'Measured' as in proportionate to the nature of the crime, surely you
would agree that is a fundamental part of the justice system? But of
course as you say being an effective deterrent is also of fundamental
importance.
So what would you call proportionate to the murder of a two-year old
by a couple of ten-year olds?
Not being subjected to the action of lynch mobs, that's for sure.
There haven't been any. Several people have revealed Venables' true
identity, is all.
???
His true identity is not protected. It's "Venables".
???
I cannot use his assumed name here so I refer to him as 'Venables'.
"Venables" is nevertheless his true identity.
Grikboxer®™
2019-08-10 12:59:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
'Measured' as in proportionate to the nature of the crime, surely you
would agree that is a fundamental part of the justice system? But of
course as you say being an effective deterrent is also of fundamental
importance.
So what would you call proportionate to the murder of a two-year old
by a couple of ten-year olds?
Not being subjected to the action of lynch mobs, that's for sure.
There haven't been any. Several people have revealed Venables' true
identity, is all.
???
His true identity is not protected. It's "Venables".
???
I cannot use his assumed name here so I refer to him as 'Venables'.
"Venables" is nevertheless his true identity.
Of course it is. But he doesn't go as Venables any more.
Peeler
2019-08-10 13:09:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 05:59:27 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by JNugent
???
His true identity is not protected. It's "Venables".
???
I cannot use his assumed name here so I refer to him as 'Venables'.
"Venables" is nevertheless his true identity.
Of course it is. But he doesn't go as Venables any more.
It's still not protected, blabbering psychopathic asshole!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Isn't it time that paedophiles were admitted to the LGBTQ rainbow?
Now that every other sexual deviation seems to have been accommodated?"
MID: <Y8LUE.513827$***@usenetxs.com>
Peeler
2019-08-10 12:36:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 04:43:57 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by JNugent
???
His true identity is not protected. It's "Venables".
???
I cannot use his assumed name here so I refer to him as 'Venables'.
You can be proud of yourself, pedophilic Razovic, you managed to start
another one of your psychopathic "discussions"! Innit? LOL
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Isn't it time that paedophiles were admitted to the LGBTQ rainbow?
Now that every other sexual deviation seems to have been accommodated?"
MID: <Y8LUE.513827$***@usenetxs.com>
Col
2019-08-10 07:38:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
So what would you call proportionate to the murder of a two-year old
by a couple of ten-year olds?
Not being subjected to the action of lynch mobs, that's for sure.
There haven't been any. Several people have revealed Venables' true
identity, is all.
No, but that is the course of action you seem happy for people to take.

't.
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
I don't see how you can fail to make a distinction between crimes. You
might think your burglary was a heinous crime; it's unlikely anyone
else will have even heard of it. Quite unlike the Jamie Bulger
murder, which was universally condemned.
So vigilante action is OK if it's all over the media and the tabloids
are foaming at the mouth over it?
Only when the criminal justice system fails us...as it has in this
instance.
Only in your opinion. You don't get to decide that the criminal justice
system has 'failed' and then simply resort to dispensing your own
'justice' as you see fit. That's not how it works. Imagine if we all did
that, it would be chaos. Personally I would have liked to have seen
Thomson & Venables spend rather more time in prison but they didn't and
I think we have to accept that.
--
Col
Grikboxer®™
2019-08-10 12:13:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
So what would you call proportionate to the murder of a two-year old
by a couple of ten-year olds?
Not being subjected to the action of lynch mobs, that's for sure.
There haven't been any. Several people have revealed Venables' true
identity, is all.
No, but that is the course of action you seem happy for people to take.
I'm not advocating it, but I see no reason to go to extraordinary
lengths to prevent it. How much money has been wasted on attempts to
preserve the anonymity of these two?
Post by Col
't.
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
I don't see how you can fail to make a distinction between crimes. You
might think your burglary was a heinous crime; it's unlikely anyone
else will have even heard of it. Quite unlike the Jamie Bulger
murder, which was universally condemned.
So vigilante action is OK if it's all over the media and the tabloids
are foaming at the mouth over it?
Only when the criminal justice system fails us...as it has in this
instance.
Only in your opinion.
And that of countless others. Are you unaware of public opinion?
Post by Col
You don't get to decide that the criminal justice
system has 'failed' and then simply resort to dispensing your own
'justice' as you see fit. That's not how it works. Imagine if we all did
that, it would be chaos. Personally I would have liked to have seen
Thomson & Venables spend rather more time in prison but they didn't and
I think we have to accept that.
You don't get to decide that the criminal justice system has done its
job and simply leave it at that. Miscarriages of justice (wrongful
convictions as well as lenient sentences) happen all the time. The
latter quite often as the result of an individual decision by some
doddering old judge. Accept that if you like, but don't expect
everyone else to do likewise.
JNugent
2019-08-10 12:25:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
So what would you call proportionate to the murder of a two-year old
by a couple of ten-year olds?
Not being subjected to the action of lynch mobs, that's for sure.
There haven't been any. Several people have revealed Venables' true
identity, is all.
No, but that is the course of action you seem happy for people to take.
I'm not advocating it, but I see no reason to go to extraordinary
lengths to prevent it. How much money has been wasted on attempts to
preserve the anonymity of these two?
Post by Col
't.
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
I don't see how you can fail to make a distinction between crimes. You
might think your burglary was a heinous crime; it's unlikely anyone
else will have even heard of it. Quite unlike the Jamie Bulger
murder, which was universally condemned.
So vigilante action is OK if it's all over the media and the tabloids
are foaming at the mouth over it?
Only when the criminal justice system fails us...as it has in this
instance.
Only in your opinion.
And that of countless others. Are you unaware of public opinion?
Post by Col
You don't get to decide that the criminal justice
system has 'failed' and then simply resort to dispensing your own
'justice' as you see fit. That's not how it works. Imagine if we all did
that, it would be chaos. Personally I would have liked to have seen
Thomson & Venables spend rather more time in prison but they didn't and
I think we have to accept that.
You don't get to decide that the criminal justice system has done its
job and simply leave it at that.
Actually, he does, just like the rest of us. We have to "leave it at
that" no matter what we think of a case.
Post by Grikboxer®™
Miscarriages of justice (wrongful
convictions as well as lenient sentences) happen all the time. The
latter quite often as the result of an individual decision by some
doddering old judge. Accept that if you like, but don't expect
everyone else to do likewise.
What any of us like or dislike is completely our own private business.

What we do, on the other hand, might not be.
Grikboxer®™
2019-08-10 13:02:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
So what would you call proportionate to the murder of a two-year old
by a couple of ten-year olds?
Not being subjected to the action of lynch mobs, that's for sure.
There haven't been any. Several people have revealed Venables' true
identity, is all.
No, but that is the course of action you seem happy for people to take.
I'm not advocating it, but I see no reason to go to extraordinary
lengths to prevent it. How much money has been wasted on attempts to
preserve the anonymity of these two?
Post by Col
't.
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
I don't see how you can fail to make a distinction between crimes. You
might think your burglary was a heinous crime; it's unlikely anyone
else will have even heard of it. Quite unlike the Jamie Bulger
murder, which was universally condemned.
So vigilante action is OK if it's all over the media and the tabloids
are foaming at the mouth over it?
Only when the criminal justice system fails us...as it has in this
instance.
Only in your opinion.
And that of countless others. Are you unaware of public opinion?
Post by Col
You don't get to decide that the criminal justice
system has 'failed' and then simply resort to dispensing your own
'justice' as you see fit. That's not how it works. Imagine if we all did
that, it would be chaos. Personally I would have liked to have seen
Thomson & Venables spend rather more time in prison but they didn't and
I think we have to accept that.
You don't get to decide that the criminal justice system has done its
job and simply leave it at that.
Actually, he does, just like the rest of us. We have to "leave it at
that" no matter what we think of a case.
Actually no, we don't. If there is sufficient public outcry, things
will change.
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikboxer®™
Miscarriages of justice (wrongful
convictions as well as lenient sentences) happen all the time. The
latter quite often as the result of an individual decision by some
doddering old judge. Accept that if you like, but don't expect
everyone else to do likewise.
What any of us like or dislike is completely our own private business.
What we do, on the other hand, might not be.
As was the case with Thompson and Venables.
Peeler
2019-08-10 13:12:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 06:02:38 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by JNugent
Actually, he does, just like the rest of us. We have to "leave it at
that" no matter what we think of a case.
Actually no, we don't. If there is sufficient public outcry, things
will change.
NOT if the "outcry" is obviously made by mentally troubled idiots and
psychopaths like you, psychopathic dreckserb!
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by JNugent
What any of us like or dislike is completely our own private business.
What we do, on the other hand, might not be.
As was the case with Thompson and Venables.
Duh! So much "wisdom" in one psychopathic little asshole!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Why do we still have outdated laws prohibiting paedophilia? Do you
seriously think that a 12-year old who spends 15 hours a day on Facebook
doesn't know what's going on?"
MID: <FnMUE.676068$***@usenetxs.com>
Col
2019-08-10 12:34:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
Only when the criminal justice system fails us...as it has in this
instance.
Only in your opinion.
And that of countless others. Are you unaware of public opinion?
Is this the 'court of public opinion', is that the highest court in the
land?
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
You don't get to decide that the criminal justice
system has 'failed' and then simply resort to dispensing your own
'justice' as you see fit. That's not how it works. Imagine if we all did
that, it would be chaos. Personally I would have liked to have seen
Thomson & Venables spend rather more time in prison but they didn't and
I think we have to accept that.
You don't get to decide that the criminal justice system has done its
job and simply leave it at that. Miscarriages of justice (wrongful
convictions as well as lenient sentences) happen all the time. The
latter quite often as the result of an individual decision by some
doddering old judge. Accept that if you like, but don't expect
everyone else to do likewise.
We have to have some kind of criminal justice system that makes
decisions based upon evidence by people unconnected with the actual
case. I have already indicated elsewhere in this thread that I accept
that mistakes can be made, the system isn't perfect and it never will
be. However the way to improve this is to to reform the system rather
than considering it acceptable that people can simply administer their
own retribution if they think a sentence is too lenient.
--
Col
Grikboxer®™
2019-08-10 13:06:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
Only when the criminal justice system fails us...as it has in this
instance.
Only in your opinion.
And that of countless others. Are you unaware of public opinion?
Is this the 'court of public opinion', is that the highest court in the
land?
It's actually the lowest but most widespread.
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
You don't get to decide that the criminal justice
system has 'failed' and then simply resort to dispensing your own
'justice' as you see fit. That's not how it works. Imagine if we all did
that, it would be chaos. Personally I would have liked to have seen
Thomson & Venables spend rather more time in prison but they didn't and
I think we have to accept that.
You don't get to decide that the criminal justice system has done its
job and simply leave it at that. Miscarriages of justice (wrongful
convictions as well as lenient sentences) happen all the time. The
latter quite often as the result of an individual decision by some
doddering old judge. Accept that if you like, but don't expect
everyone else to do likewise.
We have to have some kind of criminal justice system that makes
decisions based upon evidence by people unconnected with the actual
case. I have already indicated elsewhere in this thread that I accept
that mistakes can be made, the system isn't perfect and it never will
be. However the way to improve this is to to reform the system rather
than considering it acceptable that people can simply administer their
own retribution if they think a sentence is too lenient.
That actually hasn't happened in this case, as we've discussed. But I
don't consider it acceptable to spend outrageous amounts of money to
prevent it happening. There as even talk of rehousing the two
Scousers in another part of the Empire!
Peeler
2019-08-10 13:15:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 06:06:33 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
And that of countless others. Are you unaware of public opinion?
Is this the 'court of public opinion', is that the highest court in the
land?
It's actually the lowest but most widespread.
The VERY lowest as long as psychopaths like you are there!
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
We have to have some kind of criminal justice system that makes
decisions based upon evidence by people unconnected with the actual
case. I have already indicated elsewhere in this thread that I accept
that mistakes can be made, the system isn't perfect and it never will
be. However the way to improve this is to to reform the system rather
than considering it acceptable that people can simply administer their
own retribution if they think a sentence is too lenient.
That actually hasn't happened in this case, as we've discussed. But I
don't consider it acceptable to spend outrageous amounts of money to
prevent it happening. There as even talk of rehousing the two
Scousers in another part of the Empire!
Looks like that "Todal" (now "Col") is almost as much of a verbose
bullshitter as you, psychopath! LOL
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic answering a question whether there
is any meaningful debate to lower the age of consent:
"If there isn't, there should be."
MID: <ZAMUE.174724$***@usenetxs.com>
Peeler
2019-08-10 12:39:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 05:13:47 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
No, but that is the course of action you seem happy for people to take.
I'm not advocating it, but I see no reason to go to extraordinary
lengths to prevent it. How much money has been wasted on attempts to
preserve the anonymity of these two?
People who are possibly as depraved and lowly as you, REALLY always interest
you, eh, psychopathic, depraved perverted dreckserb?
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Why do we still have outdated laws prohibiting paedophilia? Do you
seriously think that a 12-year old who spends 15 hours a day on Facebook
doesn't know what's going on?"
MID: <FnMUE.676068$***@usenetxs.com>
Peeler
2019-08-09 19:37:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 11:12:51 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grikboxer®™", farted again:

<FLUSH the usual idiotic bullshit-"discussion">

...and nothing's left!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic answering a question whether there
is any meaningful debate to lower the age of consent:
"If there isn't, there should be."
MID: <ZAMUE.174724$***@usenetxs.com>
The Marquis Saint Evremonde
2019-08-10 07:44:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I don't see how you you can make a distinction between crimes. Either
you think it's OK to take the law into your own hands, or you don't.
We make distinctions between crimes (and conduct generally) for many
other purposes, why not this one?
--
Evremonde
Keema's Nan
2019-08-10 08:21:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
I don't see how you you can make a distinction between crimes. Either
you think it's OK to take the law into your own hands, or you don't.
We make distinctions between crimes (and conduct generally) for many
other purposes, why not this one?
Ok, so where do you draw the line of distinction, before you take the law
into your own hands?

The age or sex of the victim, maybe. Are you allowing yourself the right to
beat up the murderer of a child, but not a pensioner?

How would you prove murder (as opposed to manslaughter, or a terrible
accident) in the seconds before you do the beating up?

I hope your vigilante crime distinction rules have all this planned; or the
vigilantes’ vigilante may decide to beat you up as well. And what do we
have? Anarchy, civil war. Is that your aim?
Col
2019-08-10 09:11:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
I don't see how you you can make a distinction between crimes. Either
you think it's OK to take the law into your own hands, or you don't.
We make distinctions between crimes (and conduct generally) for many
other purposes, why not this one?
Having a workable & respected criminal justice system is a cornerstone
of society. Sometimes mistakes are made but we have to accept that and
make improvements accordingly. What if we all went around dispensing our
own 'justice' when we didn't agree with whatever sentencing decision was
made in court?
--
Col
Keema's Nan
2019-08-10 09:16:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
I don't see how you you can make a distinction between crimes. Either
you think it's OK to take the law into your own hands, or you don't.
We make distinctions between crimes (and conduct generally) for many
other purposes, why not this one?
Having a workable & respected criminal justice system is a cornerstone
of society. Sometimes mistakes are made but we have to accept that and
make improvements accordingly. What if we all went around dispensing our
own 'justice' when we didn't agree with whatever sentencing decision was
made in court?
These people are not disagreeing because of a decision made in court.

They are disagreeing because the trial by tabloid which they slaver over, has
told them the decision made in court was a travesty. They have no minds of
their own, but follow the largest and most aggressive group they can find.

It makes them appear ‘hard’, you see.
The Todal
2019-08-10 10:16:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
I don't see how you you can make a distinction between crimes. Either
you think it's OK to take the law into your own hands, or you don't.
We make distinctions between crimes (and conduct generally) for many
other purposes, why not this one?
Having a workable & respected criminal justice system is a cornerstone
of society. Sometimes mistakes are made but we have to accept that and
make improvements accordingly. What if we all went around dispensing our
own 'justice' when we didn't agree with whatever sentencing decision was
made in court?
These people are not disagreeing because of a decision made in court.
They are disagreeing because the trial by tabloid which they slaver over, has
told them the decision made in court was a travesty. They have no minds of
their own, but follow the largest and most aggressive group they can find.
It makes them appear ‘hard’, you see.
Well said.
g***@googlemail.com
2019-08-10 11:07:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Keema's Nan
Having a workable & respected criminal justice system is a cornerstone
of society. Sometimes mistakes are made but we have to accept that and
make improvements accordingly. What if we all went around dispensing our
own 'justice' when we didn't agree with whatever sentencing decision was
made in court?
These people are not disagreeing because of a decision made in court.
They are disagreeing because the trial by tabloid which they slaver over, has
told them the decision made in court was a travesty. They have no minds of
their own, but follow the largest and most aggressive group they can find.
It makes them appear ‘hard’, you see.
Well said.
The blind leading the blind.
JNugent
2019-08-10 12:27:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
I don't see how you you can make a distinction between crimes. Either
you think it's OK to take the law into your own hands, or you don't.
We make distinctions between crimes (and conduct generally) for many
other purposes, why not this one?
Having a workable &  respected criminal justice system is a cornerstone
of society. Sometimes mistakes are made but we have to accept that and
make improvements accordingly. What if we all went around dispensing our
own 'justice' when we didn't agree with whatever sentencing decision was
made in court?
These people are not disagreeing because of a decision made in court.
They are disagreeing because the trial by tabloid which they slaver over, has
told them the decision made in court was a travesty. They have no minds of
their own, but follow the largest and most aggressive group they can find.
It makes them appear ‘hard’, you see.
Well said.
+1.
Brian Reay
2019-08-10 12:00:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
I don't see how you you can make a distinction between crimes. Either
you think it's OK to take the law into your own hands, or you don't.
We make distinctions between crimes (and conduct generally) for many
other purposes, why not this one?
Having a workable & respected criminal justice system is a cornerstone
of society. Sometimes mistakes are made but we have to accept that and
make improvements accordingly. What if we all went around dispensing our
own 'justice' when we didn't agree with whatever sentencing decision was
made in court?
These people are not disagreeing because of a decision made in court.
They are disagreeing because the trial by tabloid which they slaver over, has
told them the decision made in court was a travesty. They have no minds of
their own, but follow the largest and most aggressive group they can find.
It makes them appear ‘hard’, you see.
You don't have to be 'hard' to believe those who sexually assault and/or
murder children (or adults for that matter) have no place in civilised
society. You just need have a sense of decency. Something you clearly lack.
JNugent
2019-08-10 12:29:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
I don't see how you you can make a distinction between crimes. Either
you think it's OK to take the law into your own hands, or you don't.
We make distinctions between crimes (and conduct generally) for many
other purposes, why not this one?
Having a workable &  respected criminal justice system is a cornerstone
of society. Sometimes mistakes are made but we have to accept that and
make improvements accordingly. What if we all went around dispensing our
own 'justice' when we didn't agree with whatever sentencing decision was
made in court?
These people are not disagreeing because of a decision made in court.
They are disagreeing because the trial by tabloid which they slaver over, has
told them the decision made in court was a travesty. They have no minds of
their own, but follow the largest and most aggressive group they can find.
It makes them appear ‘hard’, you see.
You don't have to be 'hard' to believe those who sexually assault and/or
murder children (or adults for that matter) have no place in civilised
society. You just need have a sense of decency. Something you clearly lack.
I have no problem - not the slightest bit of it - in agreeing with the
proposition that (proven) adult murderers should be judicially executed.

But these two were ten-year-old children.
abelard
2019-08-10 12:35:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
I don't see how you you can make a distinction between crimes. Either
you think it's OK to take the law into your own hands, or you don't.
We make distinctions between crimes (and conduct generally) for many
other purposes, why not this one?
Having a workable &  respected criminal justice system is a cornerstone
of society. Sometimes mistakes are made but we have to accept that and
make improvements accordingly. What if we all went around dispensing our
own 'justice' when we didn't agree with whatever sentencing decision was
made in court?
These people are not disagreeing because of a decision made in court.
They are disagreeing because the trial by tabloid which they slaver over, has
told them the decision made in court was a travesty. They have no minds of
their own, but follow the largest and most aggressive group they can find.
It makes them appear ‘hard’, you see.
You don't have to be 'hard' to believe those who sexually assault and/or
murder children (or adults for that matter) have no place in civilised
society. You just need have a sense of decency. Something you clearly lack.
I have no problem - not the slightest bit of it - in agreeing with the
proposition that (proven) adult murderers should be judicially executed.
will you apply for the job?
Post by JNugent
But these two were ten-year-old children.
--
www.abelard.org
Brian Reay
2019-08-10 13:17:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
I don't see how you you can make a distinction between crimes. Either
you think it's OK to take the law into your own hands, or you don't.
We make distinctions between crimes (and conduct generally) for many
other purposes, why not this one?
Having a workable &  respected criminal justice system is a cornerstone
of society. Sometimes mistakes are made but we have to accept that and
make improvements accordingly. What if we all went around dispensing our
own 'justice' when we didn't agree with whatever sentencing decision was
made in court?
These people are not disagreeing because of a decision made in court.
They are disagreeing because the trial by tabloid which they slaver over, has
told them the decision made in court was a travesty. They have no minds of
their own, but follow the largest and most aggressive group they can find.
It makes them appear ‘hard’, you see.
You don't have to be 'hard' to believe those who sexually assault
and/or murder children (or adults for that matter) have no place in
civilised society. You just need have a sense of decency. Something
you clearly lack.
I have no problem - not the slightest bit of it - in agreeing with the
proposition that (proven) adult murderers should be judicially executed.
But these two were ten-year-old children.
Their victim was a child.


The moment we started worrying more about the criminals than victims is
exactly where things started to go pear shaped.

Suggesting these two didn't know what they were doing was not only wrong
but serious is beyond naive.
abelard
2019-08-10 13:25:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Brian Reay
Post by JNugent
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
I don't see how you you can make a distinction between crimes. Either
you think it's OK to take the law into your own hands, or you don't.
We make distinctions between crimes (and conduct generally) for many
other purposes, why not this one?
Having a workable &  respected criminal justice system is a cornerstone
of society. Sometimes mistakes are made but we have to accept that and
make improvements accordingly. What if we all went around dispensing our
own 'justice' when we didn't agree with whatever sentencing decision was
made in court?
These people are not disagreeing because of a decision made in court.
They are disagreeing because the trial by tabloid which they slaver over, has
told them the decision made in court was a travesty. They have no minds of
their own, but follow the largest and most aggressive group they can find.
It makes them appear ‘hard’, you see.
You don't have to be 'hard' to believe those who sexually assault
and/or murder children (or adults for that matter) have no place in
civilised society. You just need have a sense of decency. Something
you clearly lack.
I have no problem - not the slightest bit of it - in agreeing with the
proposition that (proven) adult murderers should be judicially executed.
But these two were ten-year-old children.
Their victim was a child.
The moment we started worrying more about the criminals than victims is
exactly where things started to go pear shaped.
Suggesting these two didn't know what they were doing was not only wrong
but serious is beyond naive.
you have no knowledge of what goes on in the mind of another...

to believe otherwise is unalloyed vanity
--
www.abelard.org
Keema's Nan
2019-08-10 13:30:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Brian Reay
Post by JNugent
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
I don't see how you you can make a distinction between crimes. Either
you think it's OK to take the law into your own hands, or you don't.
We make distinctions between crimes (and conduct generally) for many
other purposes, why not this one?
Having a workable & respected criminal justice system is a cornerstone
of society. Sometimes mistakes are made but we have to accept that and
make improvements accordingly. What if we all went around dispensing our
own 'justice' when we didn't agree with whatever sentencing decision was
made in court?
These people are not disagreeing because of a decision made in court.
They are disagreeing because the trial by tabloid which they slaver over, has
told them the decision made in court was a travesty. They have no minds of
their own, but follow the largest and most aggressive group they can find.
It makes them appear ‘hard’, you see.
You don't have to be 'hard' to believe those who sexually assault
and/or murder children (or adults for that matter) have no place in
civilised society. You just need have a sense of decency. Something
you clearly lack.
I have no problem - not the slightest bit of it - in agreeing with the
proposition that (proven) adult murderers should be judicially executed.
But these two were ten-year-old children.
Their victim was a child.
The moment we started worrying more about the criminals than victims is
exactly where things started to go pear shaped.
Tell that to Doreen Lawrence.
Post by Brian Reay
Suggesting these two didn't know what they were doing was not only wrong
but serious is beyond naive.
JNugent
2019-08-10 12:26:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
I don't see how you you can make a distinction between crimes. Either
you think it's OK to take the law into your own hands, or you don't.
We make distinctions between crimes (and conduct generally) for many
other purposes, why not this one?
For which crimes are citizens entitled to dole out peremptory and
arbitrary punishment?
Vidcapper
2019-08-09 06:19:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Col
The whole point of having a criminal justice system in the first place
is to have a measured approach to crime & punishment.
What if you burgle my house and I decide that whatever sentence you
receive isn't enough? Is it OK for me to go and beat you up?
The usual route is to take the high road, and lobby MP's to change the law.

Unfortunately, most MP's couldn't give a shit about justice, and are
only interested in the bottom line...:(
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Peeler
2019-08-08 21:31:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 13:22:57 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
So do you think that vigilante justice is acceptable for all crimes or
just for 'murdering little kiddies'?
It's not necessary for all crimes. Often the criminal justice system
does what it's supposed to do. In this case it didn't.
That's NOT for proven pedophilic psychopathic sexual cripple like you to
decide, dreckserb Razovic!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"There will always be progressives such as Harriet Harperson who want to
take that extra step forward. Paedophiles are still a long way from
being widely accepted."
MID: <rlMUE.676067$***@usenetxs.com>
Vidcapper
2019-08-09 06:15:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
In a so-called 'civilised' country you cannot have 10-year olds
murdering little kiddies. If they do, they should expect nothing
less.
So do you think that vigilante justice is acceptable for all crimes or
just for 'murdering little kiddies'?
That's a very good question...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Peeler
2019-08-08 20:08:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 12:30:03 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Because in a so-called 'civilised' country you cannot have lynch mobs &
vigilante gangs roaming the streets dishing out their own form of
'justice' as they see fit, that's why.
In a so-called 'civilised' country you cannot have 10-year olds
murdering little kiddies. If they do, they should expect nothing
less.
We know already, pedophilic gay Razovic, YOU prefer to make "love" to
10-year-olds (and below)!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Isn't it time that paedophiles were admitted to the LGBTQ rainbow?
Now that every other sexual deviation seems to have been accommodated?"
MID: <Y8LUE.513827$***@usenetxs.com>
Peeler
2019-08-08 19:13:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 11:21:59 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikboxer®™
Why does a murderous scumbag like Venables deserve protection?
Will you subpeople stop at NOTHING to undermine your host countries???
Try to get your psychopathy under control, frustrated pedophilic dreckserb!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic answering a question whether there
is any "meaningful debate" to lower the age of consent:
"If there isn't, there should be."
MID: <ZAMUE.174724$***@usenetxs.com>
NEMO
2019-08-08 20:09:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikboxer®™
Why does a murderous scumbag like Venables deserve protection?
Why did YOU justify the rape and murder of infants?
JNugent
2019-08-09 09:56:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikboxer®™
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 18:32:21 +0100, Jon The Todal, a notorious semite
Post by The Todal
Several previous offenders managed to persuade the courts to give a
suspended sentence, but not this time, fortunately.
This is what happens when an idiot defies an injunction because he
thinks Twitter gives him total freedom of speech.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Wixted-Approved-1.8.19-v.1.pdf
Why does a murderous scumbag like Venables deserve protection?
Is he murderous?

There is reason to believe that he was murderous once, for a brief
moment. But now?

The reason why he is entitled to protection from exposure, of course, is
that the court ordered it.
Grikboxer®™
2019-08-09 12:13:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikboxer®™
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 18:32:21 +0100, Jon The Todal, a notorious semite
Post by The Todal
Several previous offenders managed to persuade the courts to give a
suspended sentence, but not this time, fortunately.
This is what happens when an idiot defies an injunction because he
thinks Twitter gives him total freedom of speech.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Wixted-Approved-1.8.19-v.1.pdf
Why does a murderous scumbag like Venables deserve protection?
Is he murderous?
There is reason to believe that he was murderous once, for a brief
moment. But now?
It's quite likely. He has been back to prison twice for breaching the
terms of his licence. Apart from anything else, he's a Scouser.
Post by JNugent
The reason why he is entitled to protection from exposure, of course, is
that the court ordered it.
That's the reason he has it, not the reason he's entitled to it. He's
entitled to nothing less than a lifetime in Broadmoor.
Peeler
2019-08-09 12:38:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 05:13:12 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by JNugent
There is reason to believe that he was murderous once, for a brief
moment. But now?
It's quite likely. He has been back to prison twice for breaching the
terms of his licence. Apart from anything else, he's a Scouser.
What an idiot! No, not him ...YOU!
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by JNugent
The reason why he is entitled to protection from exposure, of course, is
that the court ordered it.
That's the reason he has it, not the reason he's entitled to it. He's
entitled to nothing less than a lifetime in Broadmoor.
As I said before, that's not for an obviously sexually crippled, pedophilic
psychopath like you to decide!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Isn't it time that paedophiles were admitted to the LGBTQ rainbow?
Now that every other sexual deviation seems to have been accommodated?"
MID: <Y8LUE.513827$***@usenetxs.com>
Keema's Nan
2019-08-09 13:21:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikboxer®™
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 18:32:21 +0100, Jon The Todal, a notorious semite
Post by The Todal
Several previous offenders managed to persuade the courts to give a
suspended sentence, but not this time, fortunately.
This is what happens when an idiot defies an injunction because he
thinks Twitter gives him total freedom of speech.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/HM-Solicitor-General-v
-Wixted-Approved-1.8.19-v.1.pdf
Why does a murderous scumbag like Venables deserve protection?
Is he murderous?
There is reason to believe that he was murderous once, for a brief
moment. But now?
It's quite likely. He has been back to prison twice for breaching the
terms of his licence. Apart from anything else, he's a Scouser.
Post by JNugent
The reason why he is entitled to protection from exposure, of course, is
that the court ordered it.
That's the reason he has it, not the reason he's entitled to it. He's
entitled to nothing less than a lifetime in Broadmoor.
I believe he had been found with child abuse images on his computer, so
obviously not fit to return to normal society.
Grikboxer®™
2019-08-09 13:55:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 14:21:15 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikboxer®™
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 18:32:21 +0100, Jon The Todal, a notorious semite
Post by The Todal
Several previous offenders managed to persuade the courts to give a
suspended sentence, but not this time, fortunately.
This is what happens when an idiot defies an injunction because he
thinks Twitter gives him total freedom of speech.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/HM-Solicitor-General-v
-Wixted-Approved-1.8.19-v.1.pdf
Why does a murderous scumbag like Venables deserve protection?
Is he murderous?
There is reason to believe that he was murderous once, for a brief
moment. But now?
It's quite likely. He has been back to prison twice for breaching the
terms of his licence. Apart from anything else, he's a Scouser.
Post by JNugent
The reason why he is entitled to protection from exposure, of course, is
that the court ordered it.
That's the reason he has it, not the reason he's entitled to it. He's
entitled to nothing less than a lifetime in Broadmoor.
I believe he had been found with child abuse images on his computer, so
obviously not fit to return to normal society.
You don't hear much about the other one, Thompson, who was described
by Venables' solicitor as one of the most frightening children he'd
ever come across.
Peeler
2019-08-09 13:59:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 06:55:31 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Keema's Nan
I believe he had been found with child abuse images on his computer, so
obviously not fit to return to normal society.
You don't hear much about the other one, Thompson, who was described
by Venables' solicitor as one of the most frightening children he'd
ever come across.
You wanna hear more about him and similar people who are a lot like you,
psychopathic pedophile? No suprise!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic answering a question whether there
is any meaningful debate to lower the age of consent:
"If there isn't, there should be."
MID: <ZAMUE.174724$***@usenetxs.com>
Byker
2019-08-09 16:04:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
You don't hear much about the other one, Thompson, who was described by
Venables' solicitor as one of the most frightening children he'd ever come
across.
It seems like Mary Bell, now 61 and a grandmother, is forever being tracked
down and "outed". Bell won a High Court battle in 2003 to have her own
anonymity and that of her daughter extended for life (It had previously
been until age 18).Consequently, any court order permanently protecting the
identity of a convict in Britain is now known as a "Mary Bell order".

Twitter is for twits...
Grikboxer®™
2019-08-09 16:47:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Byker
You don't hear much about the other one, Thompson, who was described by
Venables' solicitor as one of the most frightening children he'd ever come
across.
It seems like Mary Bell, now 61 and a grandmother, is forever being tracked
down and "outed". Bell won a High Court battle in 2003 to have her own
anonymity and that of her daughter extended for life (It had previously
been until age 18).Consequently, any court order permanently protecting the
identity of a convict in Britain is now known as a "Mary Bell order".
Twitter is for twits...
We don't call them convicts any more. That was back when they were
used to populate Oztralia.
Peeler
2019-08-09 19:40:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 09:47:40 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Byker
identity of a convict in Britain is now known as a "Mary Bell order".
Twitter is for twits...
We don't
"We" again, you ridiculous serb "Brit" and "WASP" wannabe? Still playing
your psychopathic game with the people on uk.legal? Guess what will come of
it, my punching bag! LOL
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"There will always be progressives such as Harriet Harperson who want to
take that extra step forward. Paedophiles are still a long way from
being widely accepted."
MID: <rlMUE.676067$***@usenetxs.com>
Brian Reay
2019-08-09 18:58:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Byker
You don't hear much about the other one, Thompson, who was described by
Venables' solicitor as one of the most frightening children he'd ever come
across.
It seems like Mary Bell, now 61 and a grandmother, is forever being tracked
down and "outed". Bell won a High Court battle in 2003 to have her own
anonymity and that of her daughter extended for life (It had previously
been until age 18).Consequently, any court order permanently protecting the
identity of a convict in Britain is now known as a "Mary Bell order".
Twitter is for twits...
She is another one who should never have been released. I recall the
case vividly- I lived in the North East at the time and she is about my
age. Back in the late 60s, such crimes were more 'shocking', now people
almost dismiss them as part of life.

She murdered two young boys, the details were horrific. Needless to say
various excuses were trotted out - even at the time I could see such
excuses were nonsense.
The Todal
2019-08-09 20:04:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Byker
You don't hear much about the other one, Thompson, who was described by
Venables' solicitor as one of the most frightening children he'd ever come
across.
It seems like Mary Bell, now 61 and a grandmother, is forever being tracked
down and "outed". Bell won a High Court battle in 2003 to have her own
anonymity and that of her daughter extended for life (It had previously
been until age 18).Consequently, any court order permanently protecting the
identity of a convict in Britain is now known as a "Mary Bell order".
Twitter is for twits...
If Venables's solicitor is frightened by a child, he isn't fit to
practice criminal law. Still, I doubt if the troll known as Grikboxer is
able to cite a reliable source for his allegation.

It is the stuff of lazy tabloid journalism to describe children as
"evil" or "monsters" after they have committed terrible crimes.
Grikboxer®™
2019-08-09 21:45:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 21:04:46 +0100, Jon The Todal, a notorious semite
Post by The Todal
Post by Byker
You don't hear much about the other one, Thompson, who was described by
Venables' solicitor as one of the most frightening children he'd ever come
across.
It seems like Mary Bell, now 61 and a grandmother, is forever being tracked
down and "outed". Bell won a High Court battle in 2003 to have her own
anonymity and that of her daughter extended for life (It had previously
been until age 18).Consequently, any court order permanently protecting the
identity of a convict in Britain is now known as a "Mary Bell order".
Twitter is for twits...
If Venables's solicitor is frightened by a child, he isn't fit to
practice criminal law. Still, I doubt if the troll known as Grikboxer is
able to cite a reliable source for his allegation.
I refer the jew known as Jon the Todal to the relevant Wikipaedia
page.
Post by The Todal
It is the stuff of lazy tabloid journalism to describe children as
"evil" or "monsters" after they have committed terrible crimes.
It's the stuff of terrible crimes that they are committed by evil
monsters.
Peeler
2019-08-09 21:50:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 14:45:46 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikboxer®™
I refer the jew known as Jon the Todal to the relevant Wikipaedia
page.
I refer to you as a clinically insane psychopath and pedophilic asshole,
dreckserb Razovic!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Why do we still have outdated laws prohibiting paedophilia? Do you
seriously think that a 12-year old who spends 15 hours a day on Facebook
doesn't know what's going on?"
MID: <FnMUE.676068$***@usenetxs.com>
Col
2019-08-09 17:45:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikboxer®™
You don't hear much about the other one, Thompson, who was described
by Venables' solicitor as one of the most frightening children he'd
ever come across.
Yes, at the time he was always portrayed as the truly evil one of the
pair.T he 'ringleader', if indeed you can have a ringleader with just
two people. I was rather surprised that it was Venables rather than
Thompson who was getting into fights, revealing his identity, breaking
his parole terms and downloading child porn.
--
Col
Grikboxer®™
2019-08-09 18:14:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
You don't hear much about the other one, Thompson, who was described
by Venables' solicitor as one of the most frightening children he'd
ever come across.
Yes, at the time he was always portrayed as the truly evil one of the
pair.T he 'ringleader', if indeed you can have a ringleader with just
two people. I was rather surprised that it was Venables rather than
Thompson who was getting into fights, revealing his identity, breaking
his parole terms and downloading child porn.
Perhaps he just took longer to 'mature'.
Keema's Nan
2019-08-09 18:34:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
You don't hear much about the other one, Thompson, who was described
by Venables' solicitor as one of the most frightening children he'd
ever come across.
Yes, at the time he was always portrayed as the truly evil one of the
pair.T he 'ringleader', if indeed you can have a ringleader with just
two people. I was rather surprised that it was Venables rather than
Thompson who was getting into fights, revealing his identity, breaking
his parole terms and downloading child porn.
Perhaps he just took longer to 'mature'.
Or maybe he actually has learned to feel genuine remorse for his sins; and is
determined to lead a peaceful life for the rest of his days?
Brian Reay
2019-08-09 18:45:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
You don't hear much about the other one, Thompson, who was described
by Venables' solicitor as one of the most frightening children he'd
ever come across.
Yes, at the time he was always portrayed as the truly evil one of the
pair.T he 'ringleader', if indeed you can have a ringleader with just
two people. I was rather surprised that it was Venables rather than
Thompson who was getting into fights, revealing his identity, breaking
his parole terms and downloading child porn.
Perhaps he just took longer to 'mature'.
Or maybe he actually has learned to feel genuine remorse for his sins; and is
determined to lead a peaceful life for the rest of his days?
'Mature'? 'feel genuine remorse'?

They weren't locked up for nicking apples or kicking a football through
someone's window. They kidnapped, assaulted (to put it mildly), and
murdered a small child.

As a MINIMUM they should have been locked up for life.
Keema's Nan
2019-08-09 19:01:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
You don't hear much about the other one, Thompson, who was described
by Venables' solicitor as one of the most frightening children he'd
ever come across.
Yes, at the time he was always portrayed as the truly evil one of the
pair.T he 'ringleader', if indeed you can have a ringleader with just
two people. I was rather surprised that it was Venables rather than
Thompson who was getting into fights, revealing his identity, breaking
his parole terms and downloading child porn.
Perhaps he just took longer to 'mature'.
Or maybe he actually has learned to feel genuine remorse for his sins; and is
determined to lead a peaceful life for the rest of his days?
'Mature'? 'feel genuine remorse'?
They weren't locked up for nicking apples or kicking a football through
someone's window. They kidnapped, assaulted (to put it mildly), and
murdered a small child.
As a MINIMUM they should have been locked up for life.
I am well aware of what they did.

I don’t see how locking a ten year old up for life is going to achieve
anything, other than satisfy the desire for revenge by those completely
unconnected with the crime, criminals, victims, or their families.

Fortunately, we live in a democracy where hopefully common sense prevails -
and are not going to be ruled by some self appointed loudmouth any time soon.

If you don’t like UK justice, you can always fuck off somewhere else.
Brian Reay
2019-08-09 19:36:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
You don't hear much about the other one, Thompson, who was described
by Venables' solicitor as one of the most frightening children he'd
ever come across.
Yes, at the time he was always portrayed as the truly evil one of the
pair.T he 'ringleader', if indeed you can have a ringleader with just
two people. I was rather surprised that it was Venables rather than
Thompson who was getting into fights, revealing his identity, breaking
his parole terms and downloading child porn.
Perhaps he just took longer to 'mature'.
Or maybe he actually has learned to feel genuine remorse for his sins; and is
determined to lead a peaceful life for the rest of his days?
'Mature'? 'feel genuine remorse'?
They weren't locked up for nicking apples or kicking a football through
someone's window. They kidnapped, assaulted (to put it mildly), and
murdered a small child.
As a MINIMUM they should have been locked up for life.
I am well aware of what they did.
I don’t see how locking a ten year old up for life is going to achieve
anything, other than satisfy the desire for revenge by those completely
unconnected with the crime, criminals, victims, or their families.
Fortunately, we live in a democracy where hopefully common sense prevails -
and are not going to be ruled by some self appointed loudmouth any time soon.
If you don’t like UK justice, you can always fuck off somewhere else.
It is your, so called, 'common sense' that dismisses the death of a
child as you have done, the level of knife crime we see today, attacks
on people in their homes,.....
Keema's Nan
2019-08-10 07:07:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
You don't hear much about the other one, Thompson, who was described
by Venables' solicitor as one of the most frightening children he'd
ever come across.
Yes, at the time he was always portrayed as the truly evil one of the
pair.T he 'ringleader', if indeed you can have a ringleader with just
two people. I was rather surprised that it was Venables rather than
Thompson who was getting into fights, revealing his identity, breaking
his parole terms and downloading child porn.
Perhaps he just took longer to 'mature'.
Or maybe he actually has learned to feel genuine remorse for his sins; and is
determined to lead a peaceful life for the rest of his days?
'Mature'? 'feel genuine remorse'?
They weren't locked up for nicking apples or kicking a football through
someone's window. They kidnapped, assaulted (to put it mildly), and
murdered a small child.
As a MINIMUM they should have been locked up for life.
I am well aware of what they did.
I don’t see how locking a ten year old up for life is going to achieve
anything, other than satisfy the desire for revenge by those completely
unconnected with the crime, criminals, victims, or their families.
Fortunately, we live in a democracy where hopefully common sense prevails -
and are not going to be ruled by some self appointed loudmouth any time soon.
If you don’t like UK justice, you can always fuck off somewhere else.
It is your, so called, 'common sense' that dismisses the death of a
child as you have done, the level of knife crime we see today, attacks
on people in their homes,.....
I haven’t mentioned knife crime or attacks on people in their own homes, so
how can you say my common sense has dismissed them?

A child died in horrific circumstances (and whatever I do or say; nothing
will bring that child back to life), but rather than just leave the
perpetrators to rot in solitary as some form of barbaric revenge, would it
not be better to try and make sure something like that never happens again by
attempting to understand why it happened in the first place?

There must be something which triggers certain young children to commit
murder, but not others. Why not try and discover what that is, rather than
just follow a pack of tabloid led obsessives who know nothing about the
subject?
Brian Reay
2019-08-10 12:12:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
You don't hear much about the other one, Thompson, who was described
by Venables' solicitor as one of the most frightening children he'd
ever come across.
Yes, at the time he was always portrayed as the truly evil one of the
pair.T he 'ringleader', if indeed you can have a ringleader with just
two people. I was rather surprised that it was Venables rather than
Thompson who was getting into fights, revealing his identity, breaking
his parole terms and downloading child porn.
Perhaps he just took longer to 'mature'.
Or maybe he actually has learned to feel genuine remorse for his sins; and is
determined to lead a peaceful life for the rest of his days?
'Mature'? 'feel genuine remorse'?
They weren't locked up for nicking apples or kicking a football through
someone's window. They kidnapped, assaulted (to put it mildly), and
murdered a small child.
As a MINIMUM they should have been locked up for life.
I am well aware of what they did.
I don’t see how locking a ten year old up for life is going to achieve
anything, other than satisfy the desire for revenge by those completely
unconnected with the crime, criminals, victims, or their families.
Fortunately, we live in a democracy where hopefully common sense prevails -
and are not going to be ruled by some self appointed loudmouth any time soon.
If you don’t like UK justice, you can always fuck off somewhere else.
It is your, so called, 'common sense' that dismisses the death of a
child as you have done, the level of knife crime we see today, attacks
on people in their homes,.....
I haven’t mentioned knife crime or attacks on people in their own homes, so
how can you say my common sense has dismissed them?
If you are happy to release sex offenders and murders, as you clearly
are, it is hardly likely you are going to be tough to others, is it?
Post by Keema's Nan
A child died in horrific circumstances (and whatever I do or say; nothing
will bring that child back to life), but rather than just leave the
perpetrators to rot in solitary as some form of barbaric revenge, would it
not be better to try and make sure something like that never happens again by
attempting to understand why it happened in the first place?
There must be something which triggers certain young children to commit
murder, but not others. Why not try and discover what that is, rather than
just follow a pack of tabloid led obsessives who know nothing about the
subject?
You have listed a number of reasons why you think people may support
locking those who commit this type of crime up but missed a key one-
ensuring THEY don't do it again. Revenge is YOUR idea, not mine. Clearly
you have a more petty agenda.

Those who commit these crimes simply can't be trusted not to reoffend,
some have committed multiple offences in the past already.
Keema's Nan
2019-08-10 13:08:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
You don't hear much about the other one, Thompson, who was described
by Venables' solicitor as one of the most frightening children he'd
ever come across.
Yes, at the time he was always portrayed as the truly evil one of the
pair.T he 'ringleader', if indeed you can have a ringleader with just
two people. I was rather surprised that it was Venables rather than
Thompson who was getting into fights, revealing his identity, breaking
his parole terms and downloading child porn.
Perhaps he just took longer to 'mature'.
Or maybe he actually has learned to feel genuine remorse for his sins;
and
is
determined to lead a peaceful life for the rest of his days?
'Mature'? 'feel genuine remorse'?
They weren't locked up for nicking apples or kicking a football through
someone's window. They kidnapped, assaulted (to put it mildly), and
murdered a small child.
As a MINIMUM they should have been locked up for life.
I am well aware of what they did.
I don’t see how locking a ten year old up for life is going to achieve
anything, other than satisfy the desire for revenge by those completely
unconnected with the crime, criminals, victims, or their families.
Fortunately, we live in a democracy where hopefully common sense prevails -
and are not going to be ruled by some self appointed loudmouth any time soon.
If you don’t like UK justice, you can always fuck off somewhere else.
It is your, so called, 'common sense' that dismisses the death of a
child as you have done, the level of knife crime we see today, attacks
on people in their homes,.....
I haven’t mentioned knife crime or attacks on people in their own homes, so
how can you say my common sense has dismissed them?
If you are happy to release sex offenders and murders, as you clearly
are, it is hardly likely you are going to be tough to others, is it?
What appears clear to you, is just something you made up.

If you would like to quote the post in which I mentioned my happiness in
releasing sex offenders and murderers perhaps you would be kind enough to do
so?

Without that, you cannot be clear about anything that makes me happy. You are
simply bullshitting for effect.
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Keema's Nan
A child died in horrific circumstances (and whatever I do or say; nothing
will bring that child back to life), but rather than just leave the
perpetrators to rot in solitary as some form of barbaric revenge, would it
not be better to try and make sure something like that never happens again by
attempting to understand why it happened in the first place?
There must be something which triggers certain young children to commit
murder, but not others. Why not try and discover what that is, rather than
just follow a pack of tabloid led obsessives who know nothing about the
subject?
You have listed a number of reasons why you think people may support
locking those who commit this type of crime up but missed a key one-
ensuring THEY don't do it again. Revenge is YOUR idea, not mine. Clearly
you have a more petty agenda.
Are you really such a blinkered and narrow minded bigot, that the only way
you can think of making sure no offender ever commits the same crime again is
to lock them all up until they die?

Do you have such little faith in the consciences of previous offenders to eat
away at them while in solitary, and make them realise the evil things they
have done?

And before you set off on another bullshit adventure of ‘clearly'
misinterpreting my points in order to attempt to boost your own argument, no
I don’t believe that applies to every murderer.
Post by Brian Reay
Those who commit these crimes simply can't be trusted not to reoffend,
some have committed multiple offences in the past already.
Some have, some haven’t. How do you tell Thompson that despite his good
behaviour (presumably) and complete adherence to the anonymity and abiding by
the rules set down by his sentence, rehabilitation and (presumed) release on
license, that because Venables can’t be trusted not to re-offend, neither
of them can actually be released from jail until Venables is carried out in a
coffin?
Grikboxer®™
2019-08-10 12:19:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 08:07:00 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
You don't hear much about the other one, Thompson, who was described
by Venables' solicitor as one of the most frightening children he'd
ever come across.
Yes, at the time he was always portrayed as the truly evil one of the
pair.T he 'ringleader', if indeed you can have a ringleader with just
two people. I was rather surprised that it was Venables rather than
Thompson who was getting into fights, revealing his identity, breaking
his parole terms and downloading child porn.
Perhaps he just took longer to 'mature'.
Or maybe he actually has learned to feel genuine remorse for his sins; and is
determined to lead a peaceful life for the rest of his days?
'Mature'? 'feel genuine remorse'?
They weren't locked up for nicking apples or kicking a football through
someone's window. They kidnapped, assaulted (to put it mildly), and
murdered a small child.
As a MINIMUM they should have been locked up for life.
I am well aware of what they did.
I don’t see how locking a ten year old up for life is going to achieve
anything, other than satisfy the desire for revenge by those completely
unconnected with the crime, criminals, victims, or their families.
Fortunately, we live in a democracy where hopefully common sense prevails -
and are not going to be ruled by some self appointed loudmouth any time soon.
If you don’t like UK justice, you can always fuck off somewhere else.
It is your, so called, 'common sense' that dismisses the death of a
child as you have done, the level of knife crime we see today, attacks
on people in their homes,.....
I haven’t mentioned knife crime or attacks on people in their own homes, so
how can you say my common sense has dismissed them?
A child died in horrific circumstances (and whatever I do or say; nothing
will bring that child back to life), but rather than just leave the
perpetrators to rot in solitary as some form of barbaric revenge, would it
not be better to try and make sure something like that never happens again by
attempting to understand why it happened in the first place?
No, because whatever you do it will happen again.
There must be something which triggers certain young children to commit
murder, but not others. Why not try and discover what that is, rather than
just follow a pack of tabloid led obsessives who know nothing about the
subject?
It's called 'bad blood' in the trade: inherited criminal tendencies.

Condemn more, understand less.
Peeler
2019-08-10 12:43:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 05:19:25 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikboxer®™
It's called 'bad blood' in the trade: inherited criminal tendencies.
Interesting that a psychopath like you KNOWS about and can FEEL his own
congenital lowliness. It just adds to the fascination depraved swines like
you often have for normal people.
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic answering a question whether there
is any meaningful debate to lower the age of consent:
"If there isn't, there should be."
MID: <ZAMUE.174724$***@usenetxs.com>
Grikboxer®™
2019-08-09 19:57:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 20:01:59 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
You don't hear much about the other one, Thompson, who was described
by Venables' solicitor as one of the most frightening children he'd
ever come across.
Yes, at the time he was always portrayed as the truly evil one of the
pair.T he 'ringleader', if indeed you can have a ringleader with just
two people. I was rather surprised that it was Venables rather than
Thompson who was getting into fights, revealing his identity, breaking
his parole terms and downloading child porn.
Perhaps he just took longer to 'mature'.
Or maybe he actually has learned to feel genuine remorse for his sins; and is
determined to lead a peaceful life for the rest of his days?
'Mature'? 'feel genuine remorse'?
They weren't locked up for nicking apples or kicking a football through
someone's window. They kidnapped, assaulted (to put it mildly), and
murdered a small child.
As a MINIMUM they should have been locked up for life.
I am well aware of what they did.
Did you catch the bit where they left Jamie Bulger's body on the train
tracks to be cut in half by a passing train?
Post by Keema's Nan
I don’t see how locking a ten year old up for life is going to achieve
anything, other than satisfy the desire for revenge by those completely
unconnected with the crime, criminals, victims, or their families.
I do. It prevents the ten-year old from doing anything similar when
it inevitably grows up to be the monster it was always going to be.
Post by Keema's Nan
Fortunately, we live in a democracy where hopefully common sense prevails -
and are not going to be ruled by some self appointed loudmouth any time soon.
Unfortunately, this democracy with its 'common sense' sometimes errs
on the side of well-meaning but misguided understanding and
forgiveness.
Post by Keema's Nan
If you don’t like UK justice, you can always fuck off somewhere else.
Well there's an enlightened attitude.
Brian Reay
2019-08-09 20:18:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikboxer®™
On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 20:01:59 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
You don't hear much about the other one, Thompson, who was described
by Venables' solicitor as one of the most frightening children he'd
ever come across.
Yes, at the time he was always portrayed as the truly evil one of the
pair.T he 'ringleader', if indeed you can have a ringleader with just
two people. I was rather surprised that it was Venables rather than
Thompson who was getting into fights, revealing his identity, breaking
his parole terms and downloading child porn.
Perhaps he just took longer to 'mature'.
Or maybe he actually has learned to feel genuine remorse for his sins; and is
determined to lead a peaceful life for the rest of his days?
'Mature'? 'feel genuine remorse'?
They weren't locked up for nicking apples or kicking a football through
someone's window. They kidnapped, assaulted (to put it mildly), and
murdered a small child.
As a MINIMUM they should have been locked up for life.
I am well aware of what they did.
Did you catch the bit where they left Jamie Bulger's body on the train
tracks to be cut in half by a passing train?
Post by Keema's Nan
I don’t see how locking a ten year old up for life is going to achieve
anything, other than satisfy the desire for revenge by those completely
unconnected with the crime, criminals, victims, or their families.
I do. It prevents the ten-year old from doing anything similar when
it inevitably grows up to be the monster it was always going to be.
Post by Keema's Nan
Fortunately, we live in a democracy where hopefully common sense prevails -
and are not going to be ruled by some self appointed loudmouth any time soon.
Unfortunately, this democracy with its 'common sense' sometimes errs
on the side of well-meaning but misguided understanding and
forgiveness.
That is beyond generous. Those who condone releasing these animals
should be forced to have them living with their families.
Grikboxer®™
2019-08-09 21:46:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Grikboxer®™
On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 20:01:59 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
You don't hear much about the other one, Thompson, who was described
by Venables' solicitor as one of the most frightening children he'd
ever come across.
Yes, at the time he was always portrayed as the truly evil one of the
pair.T he 'ringleader', if indeed you can have a ringleader with just
two people. I was rather surprised that it was Venables rather than
Thompson who was getting into fights, revealing his identity, breaking
his parole terms and downloading child porn.
Perhaps he just took longer to 'mature'.
Or maybe he actually has learned to feel genuine remorse for his sins; and is
determined to lead a peaceful life for the rest of his days?
'Mature'? 'feel genuine remorse'?
They weren't locked up for nicking apples or kicking a football through
someone's window. They kidnapped, assaulted (to put it mildly), and
murdered a small child.
As a MINIMUM they should have been locked up for life.
I am well aware of what they did.
Did you catch the bit where they left Jamie Bulger's body on the train
tracks to be cut in half by a passing train?
Post by Keema's Nan
I don’t see how locking a ten year old up for life is going to achieve
anything, other than satisfy the desire for revenge by those completely
unconnected with the crime, criminals, victims, or their families.
I do. It prevents the ten-year old from doing anything similar when
it inevitably grows up to be the monster it was always going to be.
Post by Keema's Nan
Fortunately, we live in a democracy where hopefully common sense prevails -
and are not going to be ruled by some self appointed loudmouth any time soon.
Unfortunately, this democracy with its 'common sense' sometimes errs
on the side of well-meaning but misguided understanding and
forgiveness.
That is beyond generous. Those who condone releasing these animals
should be forced to have them living with their families.
Especially if they have children of their own.
Peeler
2019-08-09 21:53:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 14:46:29 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Brian Reay
That is beyond generous. Those who condone releasing these animals
should be forced to have them living with their families.
Especially if they have children of their own.
Wasn't he that other guy who proposed a "meaningful debate" about
pedophilia? Looks like you two nutters agree on more than just one point!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic answering a question whether there
is any meaningful debate to lower the age of consent:
"If there isn't, there should be."
MID: <ZAMUE.174724$***@usenetxs.com>
Fredxx
2019-08-10 00:13:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Grikboxer®™
On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 20:01:59 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
You don't hear much about the other one, Thompson, who was described
by Venables' solicitor as one of the most frightening children he'd
ever come across.
Yes, at the time he was always portrayed as the truly evil one of the
pair.T he 'ringleader', if indeed you can have a ringleader with just
two people. I was rather surprised that it was Venables rather than
Thompson who was getting into fights, revealing his identity, breaking
his parole terms and downloading child porn.
Perhaps he just took longer to 'mature'.
Or maybe he actually has learned to feel genuine remorse for his
sins; and
is
determined to lead a peaceful life for the rest of his days?
'Mature'? 'feel genuine remorse'?
They weren't locked up for nicking apples or kicking a football through
someone's window. They kidnapped, assaulted (to put it mildly), and
murdered a small child.
As a MINIMUM they should have been locked up for life.
I am well aware of what they did.
Did you catch the bit where they left Jamie Bulger's body on the train
tracks to be cut in half by a passing train?
Post by Keema's Nan
I don’t see how locking a ten year old up for life is going to achieve
anything, other than satisfy the desire for revenge by those completely
unconnected with the crime, criminals, victims, or their families.
I do.  It prevents the ten-year old from doing anything similar when
it inevitably grows up to be the monster it was always going to be.
Post by Keema's Nan
Fortunately, we live in a democracy where hopefully common sense prevails -
and are not going to be ruled by some self appointed loudmouth any time soon.
Unfortunately, this democracy with its 'common sense' sometimes errs
on the side of well-meaning but misguided understanding and
forgiveness.
That is beyond generous. Those who condone releasing these animals
should be forced to have them living with their families.
I'm ever fascinated by your posts. Of all the people who seem utterly
out of touch with society it is you.

If you can't accept that an adult can have remorse over what they did as
a 10 year old, then you are as inhuman as any Asperger or other socially
inflicted can possibly be.
Grikboxer®™
2019-08-10 11:46:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Grikboxer®™
On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 20:01:59 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
You don't hear much about the other one, Thompson, who was described
by Venables' solicitor as one of the most frightening children he'd
ever come across.
Yes, at the time he was always portrayed as the truly evil one of the
pair.T he 'ringleader', if indeed you can have a ringleader with just
two people. I was rather surprised that it was Venables rather than
Thompson who was getting into fights, revealing his identity, breaking
his parole terms and downloading child porn.
Perhaps he just took longer to 'mature'.
Or maybe he actually has learned to feel genuine remorse for his
sins; and
is
determined to lead a peaceful life for the rest of his days?
'Mature'? 'feel genuine remorse'?
They weren't locked up for nicking apples or kicking a football through
someone's window. They kidnapped, assaulted (to put it mildly), and
murdered a small child.
As a MINIMUM they should have been locked up for life.
I am well aware of what they did.
Did you catch the bit where they left Jamie Bulger's body on the train
tracks to be cut in half by a passing train?
Post by Keema's Nan
I don’t see how locking a ten year old up for life is going to achieve
anything, other than satisfy the desire for revenge by those completely
unconnected with the crime, criminals, victims, or their families.
I do.  It prevents the ten-year old from doing anything similar when
it inevitably grows up to be the monster it was always going to be.
Post by Keema's Nan
Fortunately, we live in a democracy where hopefully common sense prevails -
and are not going to be ruled by some self appointed loudmouth any time soon.
Unfortunately, this democracy with its 'common sense' sometimes errs
on the side of well-meaning but misguided understanding and
forgiveness.
That is beyond generous. Those who condone releasing these animals
should be forced to have them living with their families.
I'm ever fascinated by your posts. Of all the people who seem utterly
out of touch with society it is you.
Ah, bless...another bleeding heart.
Post by Fredxx
If you can't accept that an adult can have remorse over what they did as
a 10 year old, then you are as inhuman as any Asperger or other socially
inflicted can possibly be.
This 'remorse' being demonstrated by possession of child pornography?

If you can't accept that someone who murdered a 2-year old at the age
of 10 could turn into a mass murderer or worse, then you are as naive
and gullible as any progressive could be. Most such monsters start
out by torturing small animals...these two Scousers went one step
further.
Peeler
2019-08-10 12:50:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 04:46:00 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Fredxx
I'm ever fascinated by your posts. Of all the people who seem utterly
out of touch with society it is you.
Ah, bless...another bleeding heart.
Oh, lookie, psychopath Razovic stands up for those who might possibly be of
his own kind.
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Fredxx
If you can't accept that an adult can have remorse over what they did as
a 10 year old, then you are as inhuman as any Asperger or other socially
inflicted can possibly be.
This 'remorse' being demonstrated by possession of child pornography?
Says the hypocritical pedophilic dreckserb who, for YEARS, has been
defending pedophilia and proponing to lower the legal age of consent!
Post by Grikboxer®™
If you can't accept that someone who murdered a 2-year old at the age
of 10 could turn into a mass murderer or worse,
Says, of course, the psychopathic swine who ADMIRES and KEEPS STANDING UP
for mass murderers like Hitler and his nazi gang! Just HOW twisted are, you
filthy psychopathic dreckserb?
Post by Grikboxer®™
then you are as naive
and gullible as any progressive could be. Most such monsters start
out by torturing small animals...these two Scousers went one step
further.
Keep your psychopathic shit out of normally evolved humans' ngs, you
perverted pedophilic psychopathic swine!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"There will always be progressives such as Harriet Harperson who want to
take that extra step forward. Paedophiles are still a long way from
being widely accepted."
MID: <rlMUE.676067$***@usenetxs.com>
Peeler
2019-08-09 21:12:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 12:57:40 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikboxer®™
Unfortunately, this democracy with its 'common sense' sometimes errs
on the side of well-meaning but misguided understanding and
forgiveness.
If you don't like it, fuck off to your shithole serbija, you ridiculous
"Brit" and "WASP" wannabe!
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Keema's Nan
If you don’t like UK justice, you can always fuck off somewhere else.
Well there's an enlightened attitude.
It IS! Keep reading it religiously, until you will see the light, serb
psychopath!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"There will always be progressives such as Harriet Harperson who want to
take that extra step forward. Paedophiles are still a long way from
being widely accepted."
MID: <rlMUE.676067$***@usenetxs.com>
Keema's Nan
2019-08-10 07:11:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikboxer®™
On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 20:01:59 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
You don't hear much about the other one, Thompson, who was described
by Venables' solicitor as one of the most frightening children he'd
ever come across.
Yes, at the time he was always portrayed as the truly evil one of the
pair.T he 'ringleader', if indeed you can have a ringleader with just
two people. I was rather surprised that it was Venables rather than
Thompson who was getting into fights, revealing his identity, breaking
his parole terms and downloading child porn.
Perhaps he just took longer to 'mature'.
Or maybe he actually has learned to feel genuine remorse for his sins; and is
determined to lead a peaceful life for the rest of his days?
'Mature'? 'feel genuine remorse'?
They weren't locked up for nicking apples or kicking a football through
someone's window. They kidnapped, assaulted (to put it mildly), and
murdered a small child.
As a MINIMUM they should have been locked up for life.
I am well aware of what they did.
Did you catch the bit where they left Jamie Bulger's body on the train
tracks to be cut in half by a passing train?
Yes thanks. And the train duly did its job.

Although if you read the pathology report you will find the child was dead
before the train arrived.
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Keema's Nan
I don’t see how locking a ten year old up for life is going to achieve
anything, other than satisfy the desire for revenge by those completely
unconnected with the crime, criminals, victims, or their families.
I do. It prevents the ten-year old from doing anything similar when
it inevitably grows up to be the monster it was always going to be.
Why was the ten year old always going to be a monster?

Do you implant them at random with an evil gene?
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Keema's Nan
Fortunately, we live in a democracy where hopefully common sense prevails -
and are not going to be ruled by some self appointed loudmouth any time soon.
Unfortunately, this democracy with its 'common sense' sometimes errs
on the side of well-meaning but misguided understanding and
forgiveness.
I never mentioned forgiveness. That is for the murderers to earn over a long
period of time.

However, understanding the details of early years development might lead to
prevention of further similar acts.
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Keema's Nan
If you don’t like UK justice, you can always fuck off somewhere else.
Well there's an enlightened attitude.
I have never pretended to be enlightened. I leave that to those who care
about their own image.
Grikboxer®™
2019-08-10 12:17:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 08:11:56 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grikboxer®™
On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 20:01:59 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
You don't hear much about the other one, Thompson, who was described
by Venables' solicitor as one of the most frightening children he'd
ever come across.
Yes, at the time he was always portrayed as the truly evil one of the
pair.T he 'ringleader', if indeed you can have a ringleader with just
two people. I was rather surprised that it was Venables rather than
Thompson who was getting into fights, revealing his identity, breaking
his parole terms and downloading child porn.
Perhaps he just took longer to 'mature'.
Or maybe he actually has learned to feel genuine remorse for his sins; and is
determined to lead a peaceful life for the rest of his days?
'Mature'? 'feel genuine remorse'?
They weren't locked up for nicking apples or kicking a football through
someone's window. They kidnapped, assaulted (to put it mildly), and
murdered a small child.
As a MINIMUM they should have been locked up for life.
I am well aware of what they did.
Did you catch the bit where they left Jamie Bulger's body on the train
tracks to be cut in half by a passing train?
Yes thanks. And the train duly did its job.
Although if you read the pathology report you will find the child was dead
before the train arrived.
I did. How lucky for the child.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Keema's Nan
I don’t see how locking a ten year old up for life is going to achieve
anything, other than satisfy the desire for revenge by those completely
unconnected with the crime, criminals, victims, or their families.
I do. It prevents the ten-year old from doing anything similar when
it inevitably grows up to be the monster it was always going to be.
Why was the ten year old always going to be a monster?
Do you implant them at random with an evil gene?
Their parents do that. And in this case it manifested itself at an
earlier age than usual.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Keema's Nan
Fortunately, we live in a democracy where hopefully common sense prevails -
and are not going to be ruled by some self appointed loudmouth any time soon.
Unfortunately, this democracy with its 'common sense' sometimes errs
on the side of well-meaning but misguided understanding and
forgiveness.
I never mentioned forgiveness. That is for the murderers to earn over a long
period of time.
However, understanding the details of early years development might lead to
prevention of further similar acts.
It has more to do with inherited criminal tendencies than early years
development.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Keema's Nan
If you don’t like UK justice, you can always fuck off somewhere else.
Well there's an enlightened attitude.
I have never pretended to be enlightened. I leave that to those who care
about their own image.
Let's just call it arrogant then, shall we?
Peeler
2019-08-10 12:52:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 05:17:57 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Keema's Nan
Why was the ten year old always going to be a monster?
Do you implant them at random with an evil gene?
Their parents do that. And in this case it manifested itself at an
earlier age than usual.
Stop trying to draw the good people on uk.legal into your psychopathic
world, psychopathic pedophilic dreckserb!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"A lowering of the age of consent to reflect the rate at which today's
youngsters 'mature'."
MID: <gKNUE.1374684$***@usenetxs.com>
abelard
2019-08-10 13:21:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikboxer®™
It has more to do with inherited criminal tendencies than early years
development.
do those 'inherited tendencies' change according to the
circumstances of the local legal system?


if you need an example...

in brunei those with a 'criminal tendency' to buggery...
according to you...inherit that 'tendency'...whereas
in britain no such 'criminal tendency' appears to be
'inherited' nowadays
--
www.abelard.org
Keema's Nan
2019-08-10 13:31:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Grikboxer®™
It has more to do with inherited criminal tendencies than early years
development.
do those 'inherited tendencies' change according to the
circumstances of the local legal system?
if you need an example...
in brunei those with a 'criminal tendency' to buggery...
Hello, the usenet closet socialist has veered onto his favourite subject
again.
Post by abelard
according to you...inherit that 'tendency'...whereas
in britain no such 'criminal tendency' appears to be
'inherited' nowadays
abelard
2019-08-10 13:42:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 14:31:44 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
Post by Grikboxer®™
It has more to do with inherited criminal tendencies than early years
development.
do those 'inherited tendencies' change according to the
circumstances of the local legal system?
if you need an example...
in brunei those with a 'criminal tendency' to buggery...
Hello, the usenet closet socialist has veered onto his favourite subject
again.
with you i would have used a different example.....

the situation of 'jews' in national socialist germany
or in one of the national socialist regimes in the m.e...

it is good pedagogical practice to make the example relevant to the
proclivities of the student...
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
according to you...inherit that 'tendency'...whereas
in britain no such 'criminal tendency' appears to be
'inherited' nowadays
--
www.abelard.org
Grikboxer®™
2019-08-10 13:43:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Grikboxer®™
It has more to do with inherited criminal tendencies than early years
development.
do those 'inherited tendencies' change according to the
circumstances of the local legal system?
Why should they?
Post by abelard
if you need an example...
in brunei those with a 'criminal tendency' to buggery...
according to you...inherit that 'tendency'...whereas
in britain no such 'criminal tendency' appears to be
'inherited' nowadays
I have never discussed what happens in Brunei so there is no
'according to me'.
abelard
2019-08-10 13:46:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by abelard
Post by Grikboxer®™
It has more to do with inherited criminal tendencies than early years
development.
do those 'inherited tendencies' change according to the
circumstances of the local legal system?
Why should they?
because legal systems differ...while you are claiming
inherited tendencies for criminal behaviour
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by abelard
if you need an example...
in brunei those with a 'criminal tendency' to buggery...
according to you...inherit that 'tendency'...whereas
in britain no such 'criminal tendency' appears to be
'inherited' nowadays
I have never discussed what happens in Brunei so there is no
'according to me'.
as stated, that was merely an example to help you as i was
unsure you would follow...
seemingly it did not suffice
--
www.abelard.org
Peeler
2019-08-10 14:07:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 06:43:20 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by abelard
Post by Grikboxer®™
It has more to do with inherited criminal tendencies than early years
development.
do those 'inherited tendencies' change according to the
circumstances of the local legal system?
Why should they?
Yeah, you are a filthy pedo and psychopath wherever you are or were born,
filthy serb peasant!
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by abelard
if you need an example...
in brunei those with a 'criminal tendency' to buggery...
according to you...inherit that 'tendency'...whereas
in britain no such 'criminal tendency' appears to be
'inherited' nowadays
I have never discussed
THAT's right! ALL you EVER do is BULLSHIT ...in your known psychopathic
manner!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"There will always be progressives such as Harriet Harperson who want to
take that extra step forward. Paedophiles are still a long way from
being widely accepted."
MID: <rlMUE.676067$***@usenetxs.com>
Keema's Nan
2019-08-10 13:23:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikboxer®™
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 08:11:56 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grikboxer®™
On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 20:01:59 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
You don't hear much about the other one, Thompson, who was described
by Venables' solicitor as one of the most frightening children he'd
ever come across.
Yes, at the time he was always portrayed as the truly evil one of the
pair.T he 'ringleader', if indeed you can have a ringleader with just
two people. I was rather surprised that it was Venables rather than
Thompson who was getting into fights, revealing his identity, breaking
his parole terms and downloading child porn.
Perhaps he just took longer to 'mature'.
Or maybe he actually has learned to feel genuine remorse for his sins;
and
is
determined to lead a peaceful life for the rest of his days?
'Mature'? 'feel genuine remorse'?
They weren't locked up for nicking apples or kicking a football through
someone's window. They kidnapped, assaulted (to put it mildly), and
murdered a small child.
As a MINIMUM they should have been locked up for life.
I am well aware of what they did.
Did you catch the bit where they left Jamie Bulger's body on the train
tracks to be cut in half by a passing train?
Yes thanks. And the train duly did its job.
Although if you read the pathology report you will find the child was dead
before the train arrived.
I did. How lucky for the child.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Keema's Nan
I don’t see how locking a ten year old up for life is going to achieve
anything, other than satisfy the desire for revenge by those completely
unconnected with the crime, criminals, victims, or their families.
I do. It prevents the ten-year old from doing anything similar when
it inevitably grows up to be the monster it was always going to be.
Why was the ten year old always going to be a monster?
Do you implant them at random with an evil gene?
Their parents do that. And in this case it manifested itself at an
earlier age than usual.
Parents eh?

So, presumably the parents of both Thompson and Venables were given a
thorough workover by the police in order to discover what it was about their
upbringings which led ten year old children to want to kidnap and torture a
toddler while they could (should) have been in primary school learning long
division?

As you seem to know everything there is to know about the case, maybe you
could inform us what the police discovered about the Thompson and Venables
home family lives in the late 1980s/early 1990s which sent the boys down this
path?

You might also like to tell us which of the parents passed on the evil genes;
who triggered them, and why?
Grikboxer®™
2019-08-10 13:48:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 14:23:16 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grikboxer®™
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 08:11:56 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grikboxer®™
On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 20:01:59 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
You don't hear much about the other one, Thompson, who was described
by Venables' solicitor as one of the most frightening children he'd
ever come across.
Yes, at the time he was always portrayed as the truly evil one of the
pair.T he 'ringleader', if indeed you can have a ringleader with just
two people. I was rather surprised that it was Venables rather than
Thompson who was getting into fights, revealing his identity, breaking
his parole terms and downloading child porn.
Perhaps he just took longer to 'mature'.
Or maybe he actually has learned to feel genuine remorse for his sins;
and
is
determined to lead a peaceful life for the rest of his days?
'Mature'? 'feel genuine remorse'?
They weren't locked up for nicking apples or kicking a football through
someone's window. They kidnapped, assaulted (to put it mildly), and
murdered a small child.
As a MINIMUM they should have been locked up for life.
I am well aware of what they did.
Did you catch the bit where they left Jamie Bulger's body on the train
tracks to be cut in half by a passing train?
Yes thanks. And the train duly did its job.
Although if you read the pathology report you will find the child was dead
before the train arrived.
I did. How lucky for the child.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Keema's Nan
I don’t see how locking a ten year old up for life is going to achieve
anything, other than satisfy the desire for revenge by those completely
unconnected with the crime, criminals, victims, or their families.
I do. It prevents the ten-year old from doing anything similar when
it inevitably grows up to be the monster it was always going to be.
Why was the ten year old always going to be a monster?
Do you implant them at random with an evil gene?
Their parents do that. And in this case it manifested itself at an
earlier age than usual.
Parents eh?
Scousers too.
Post by Keema's Nan
So, presumably the parents of both Thompson and Venables were given a
thorough workover by the police in order to discover what it was about their
upbringings which led ten year old children to want to kidnap and torture a
toddler while they could (should) have been in primary school learning long
division?
Why do you imagine it has anything to do with their upbringing as
opposed to their inherited tendencies?
Post by Keema's Nan
As you seem to know everything there is to know about the case, maybe you
could inform us what the police discovered about the Thompson and Venables
home family lives in the late 1980s/early 1990s which sent the boys down this
path?
Why do you think that's even relevant?
Post by Keema's Nan
You might also like to tell us which of the parents passed on the evil genes;
who triggered them, and why?
What difference does it make? They inherited evil genes and acted
upon them.
Peeler
2019-08-10 14:08:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 06:48:53 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikboxer®™
What difference does it make? They inherited evil genes and acted
upon them.
It seems you are PROJECTING, yet AGAIN, psychopathic swine! It's psychopathy
(as daily displayed by you) that is usually considered to be genetic!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"A lowering of the age of consent to reflect the rate at which today's
youngsters 'mature'."
MID: <gKNUE.1374684$***@usenetxs.com>
Grikboxer®™
2019-08-09 18:46:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 19:34:48 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikboxer®™
You don't hear much about the other one, Thompson, who was described
by Venables' solicitor as one of the most frightening children he'd
ever come across.
Yes, at the time he was always portrayed as the truly evil one of the
pair.T he 'ringleader', if indeed you can have a ringleader with just
two people. I was rather surprised that it was Venables rather than
Thompson who was getting into fights, revealing his identity, breaking
his parole terms and downloading child porn.
Perhaps he just took longer to 'mature'.
Or maybe he actually has learned to feel genuine remorse for his sins; and is
determined to lead a peaceful life for the rest of his days?
As they say, no peace for the wicked.
Peeler
2019-08-09 19:53:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 11:46:08 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Keema's Nan
Or maybe he actually has learned to feel genuine remorse for his sins; and is
determined to lead a peaceful life for the rest of his days?
As they say, no peace for the wicked.
Especially not for wicked psychopaths, dreckserb! So watch out!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"That [referring to the term "consenting adults"] is just an outdated legal
construct. Are you telling me that a 13-year old who spends 15 hours a day
on Facebook is incapable of consent?"
MID: <Og0VE.1298131$***@usenetxs.com>
Peeler
2019-08-09 19:44:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 11:14:08 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikboxer®™
Post by Col
Yes, at the time he was always portrayed as the truly evil one of the
pair.T he 'ringleader', if indeed you can have a ringleader with just
two people. I was rather surprised that it was Venables rather than
Thompson who was getting into fights, revealing his identity, breaking
his parole terms and downloading child porn.
Perhaps he just took longer to 'mature'.
How long did it take YOUR psychopathy to "mature" fully, psychopath? Give us
a hint!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"A lowering of the age of consent to reflect the rate at which today's
youngsters 'mature'."
MID: <gKNUE.1374684$***@usenetxs.com>
Incubus
2019-08-09 08:37:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Several previous offenders managed to persuade the courts to give a
suspended sentence, but not this time, fortunately.
This is what happens when an idiot defies an injunction because he
thinks Twitter gives him total freedom of speech.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Wixted-Approved-1.8.19-v.1.pdf
Was Venables actually identified? I would feel sorry for anyone wrongly
identified and that is the only possible reason I would support such an
injunction. I don't believe Venables himself deserves any protection.
g***@googlemail.com
2019-08-10 09:19:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Several previous offenders managed to persuade the courts to give a
suspended sentence, but not this time, fortunately.
This is what happens when an idiot defies an injunction because he
thinks Twitter gives him total freedom of speech.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Wixted-Approved-1.8.19-v.1.pdf
Was Venables actually identified? I would feel sorry for anyone wrongly
identified and that is the only possible reason I would support such an
injunction. I don't believe Venables himself deserves any protection.
You and I go to court on the same day. I have hit an old lady over the head with a stick and stolen her handbag. You go in the dock next because you're up for having persuaded someone to say they were driving your car, when you were caught speeding.

The pompous, self-regarding nature of our judiciary will ensure that it is you who is far more likely to serve time, than I. You dissed the Man, I just mugged a fellow outlier.

I have observed, over the years, that people who work in the judicial system talk in the most grave and serious tones about transgressions against the law itself, but never get exercised at all over the most disturbing actions perpetrated by and against, the masses, amongst themselves.

After Lord Denning spoke the words “It is better that some innocent men remain in jail than that the integrity of the English judicial system be impugned”, he was genuinely bemused that anyone should find his view unusual. That people in the judiciary use the phrase "the majesty of the law", is something of a giveaway.

I doubt the judge who jailed Venables' identifier could give a hoot about Venables. Besides, his being identified is hardly an issue if he's secure, in the State's care, in prison. If the convicted man had pulverised Venables, he'd probably still be free, but his crime was to prick the ego of the law. He dissed the Man.
Loading...