D
Deadmanwalking
Guest
- Thread starter
- #31
And completely out of the blue comment award goes to...
And completely out of the blue comment award goes to...
B
bigbb
Guest
- Thread starter
- #32
He got two life sentences though, didn't he?
D
Deadmanwalking
Guest
- Thread starter
- #33
He did yes.
A
Arnor
Guest
- Thread starter
- #34
Look, I want the dude shot as much as the next guy, and what he did was about the worst thing a human can do to another, BUT my "joke" was reffering to an episode of southpark, and the "fun" in it was that its so absurd and overly ironic ( I mean, NOBODY can actually believe it was self-defense)
It was (in my opinion) in the same alley as saying "Saddam is innocent!" in a saddam thread ny my reasoning.
Yes it was heartless and cruel, but alot of good humor derives from such things, apparently I missed that target by quite a bit.
Where i've come from the case hasnt raged as massively in the media (atm, was pretty wellcovered when it happened though), so it felt like it had cooled over a bit for me atleast.
Now in hindsight I can see that you might ofcourse feel stronger about it. (not stronger per se, but closer if you catch where im going)
Thats my reasoing atleast, do with it what you will.
S
Swift^
Guest
- Thread starter
- #35
Now, I don't normally agree with Arnor but he's spot on here.
And besides, any situation you can't laugh at needs an injection of humour in it somewhere.
And besides, any situation you can't laugh at needs an injection of humour in it somewhere.
T
Tom
Guest
- Thread starter
- #36
I think some things should remain taboo tbh
O
old.milou
Guest
- Thread starter
- #37
It's possible that one of jurors did not believe that Huntley was guilty of murder but of manslaughter through diminished responsibility. It must have been harrowing to have been selected as a juror.
As the BBC reported:
PREVIOUS ALLEGATIONS AGAINST IAN HUNTLEY
One of indecent assault
Four of underage sex
Three of rape - one resulted in a charge
with the trial judge saying
Only Huntley knew why he had killed Holly and Jessica, adding: "Perhaps one day he might demonstrate a sliver of humanity and explain why he did what he did on that terrible day last August."
As the BBC reported:
PREVIOUS ALLEGATIONS AGAINST IAN HUNTLEY
One of indecent assault
Four of underage sex
Three of rape - one resulted in a charge
with the trial judge saying
Only Huntley knew why he had killed Holly and Jessica, adding: "Perhaps one day he might demonstrate a sliver of humanity and explain why he did what he did on that terrible day last August."
C
Cdr
Guest
- Thread starter
- #38
Was he pleading self-defence?
A
Arnor
Guest
- Thread starter
- #39
nah, not huntley, but the dude in sp was accused of killing 23 babies which he had confessed to, and the "defending crowd" was yelling that it was self-defense.
Its so beyond absurd, that even if it is a horrendous scene to imagine (especially with the dude that killed 123 or sumt children that actually did happen) it is so unbelievable that it is funny.
But where will you draw the line tom, who shall decide what is taboo?
For instance, a fat guy getting caught in the door of a burning mcdonalds *might* be funny for others, but for relatives/family its nothing but gruesome (ye i know its a bad example, but off the top of my head etc)
And just fyi, I think there is NO punishment (unless you consider a rusty cheesegrater, salt and alot of time) is cruel enough for what Ian Huntley did.
D
Durzel
Guest
- Thread starter
- #40
I'm not sure if I personally read anything into his previous allegations. Whilst some people argue "there's no smoke without fire", the same people who probably consider him guilty of those allegations regardless of any other evidence purely on the strength of this trial - other people, myself included, tend to be more cynical and think that a lot of these things come out after purely for publicity.
Not saying this is specific to Huntley, but typical of the whole media circus as a whole. Take John Leslie for example, accused of raping Ulrika and within a day of being questioned about 20 women come out of nowhere to tell of their supposedly harrowing experiences at the hands of this monster. He was cleared by the way.
Of course Huntley could conceivably have been guilty of all of the things alleged against him, and its largely a moot point given he has been proven guilty of murder.. but its food for thought anyway.
Not saying this is specific to Huntley, but typical of the whole media circus as a whole. Take John Leslie for example, accused of raping Ulrika and within a day of being questioned about 20 women come out of nowhere to tell of their supposedly harrowing experiences at the hands of this monster. He was cleared by the way.
Of course Huntley could conceivably have been guilty of all of the things alleged against him, and its largely a moot point given he has been proven guilty of murder.. but its food for thought anyway.
X
xane
Guest
- Thread starter
- #41
Having done jury service twice, and sent down one on each occasion, I can only comment that no-one knows anything about anything unless you've been there and deliberated about it.
Its bloody hard finding someone guilty, especially of murder, knowing that the prison sentence will be long and hard, and mark my words, there are some people who will always prefer to shout "not guity" and relieve themselves of the the minute chance they could be sending an innocent man to long imprisonment.
In my cases it was wounding (stabbing) and GBH (mugging), so I can only expect much more pressure when its murder or manslaughter.
Its bloody hard finding someone guilty, especially of murder, knowing that the prison sentence will be long and hard, and mark my words, there are some people who will always prefer to shout "not guity" and relieve themselves of the the minute chance they could be sending an innocent man to long imprisonment.
In my cases it was wounding (stabbing) and GBH (mugging), so I can only expect much more pressure when its murder or manslaughter.
H
hoggsboss
Guest
- Thread starter
- #42
i'll just state that i believe he is guilty first, saying that though i honestly thought his defence lawyer had done enough to reduce the charge to manslaughter, after reading most of what was reported (and there may well be evidence we didn't hear about) the prosecution didn't seem to have much to actually prove it was murder.
most of the evidence put forward by the prosecution was theory and suggestion, unless as stated before, there was more evidence we didnt hear.
glad he didn't get away with it as i was truly fearing the worst.
most of the evidence put forward by the prosecution was theory and suggestion, unless as stated before, there was more evidence we didnt hear.
glad he didn't get away with it as i was truly fearing the worst.
M
MYstIC G
Guest
- Thread starter
- #43
Pointless comment, he was tried and convicted, job done. Would you now like some kind of lynch mob to hunt that one jurer down for the rest of their days because justice has been served?
L
L_Plates
Guest
- Thread starter
- #44
I hope he gets nailed in jail for the rest of his life the sick twat !
D
Deadmanwalking
Guest
- Thread starter
- #45
Was wondering when the "fik" and ultimately useless comments would arrive.
L
L_Plates
Guest
- Thread starter
- #46
Bows.
PS: TBH DMW why would i want to write an essay about an evil human being like him that preys on young ladies.
Nuff said goodnight.
S
Sharma
Guest
- Thread starter
- #47
I shall hope it will be the end of him.
I know this case has wore on for quite some times now but the fact that he did infact do it was sickening, what drives a person so end two lives that had barely even begun is way beyond my track of thoughts. Taking two lives like theirs sickens me to the very bottom of my stomach, people like him should NOT be allowed to touch the grounds of this planet, he has altered the course of two young peoples lives abruptly and literally killed off the parents self esteem because of the shock that he had actually done this.
He has affected to many with his complete and utter twisted will, i seriously hope he goes into jail and never comes out.
D
dysfunction
Guest
- Thread starter
- #48
What I find specifically nasty about this guy is that when everyone was looking for these girls he was there "helping" them....like
- Saying things like "we can only hope they are still alive"
- Speaking to the father of the two girls giving him hope knowing that he has just killed the girls.
- Continually lying to the police and sending them on wild goose chases
And lots more I cant think of right now....
I read some of the court transcripts and what i read there certainly convinced me he was guilty of murder and I would have been quite horrified if he was found guilty of anything less than murder.
- Saying things like "we can only hope they are still alive"
- Speaking to the father of the two girls giving him hope knowing that he has just killed the girls.
- Continually lying to the police and sending them on wild goose chases
And lots more I cant think of right now....
I read some of the court transcripts and what i read there certainly convinced me he was guilty of murder and I would have been quite horrified if he was found guilty of anything less than murder.
S
sad_mung
Guest
- Thread starter
- #49
We all know the flaws, but at times like this, some of us would want a death penalty system in this country.
I don't want to spark off a row about the death penalty and issues about it....but...you know what i mean.
I don't want to spark off a row about the death penalty and issues about it....but...you know what i mean.
X
xane
Guest
- Thread starter
- #50
X
xane
Guest
- Thread starter
- #51
Right now I'm having a bit of trouble looking at the media reporting on this issue, specifically how the attention is now being put towards the police by the BBC, now Huntley is behind bars.
The BBC's Paxman spectularly stuffed up an interview with the Police Chief responsible for Soham, and now it is reporting several articles all associated with "police mistakes", it looks like the BBC has an axe to grind, and disturbingly this is in the style typical of trashy tabloids.
For example; this article states that "Many police forces are still failing to enter details of convictions and arrests into the national police computer within the required time limit", but in the Huntley case there were no convictions and details _were_ entered into the computer system but then removed in accordance with the data protection act, the point being made in the interview.
Again another article detailing Huntley's shocking past, as if to call police attention to it, but on closer examination you can only determine,as the police did, that Huntley was a "dodgy character", as none of the sexually motivated allegations came to anything.
The tie-ins go on, yet another report claims that the police missed the only computer record of Huntley for burglary because he changed his name, and then claims the school would not have employed him as a caretaker if it had been discovered. But how this supposes that Huntley would not have murdered someone if he hadn't been a caretaker is misleading.
The "human error" admitted by the police was in reference to the name change, which related to a burglary and not to the sexual offence accusations.
I think a case accusing the police of somehow "causing" the murder is unwarrented. Ironically the BBC also have this article on "Trial By Media", referring to Huntley and Carr, yet they seem unaware their own campaign against the police is exactly the same thing.
The divide between personal privacy and protection of children is a difficult one, and is the subject up for discussion, not the attitude or behaviour of the police, who are only responsible for executing the law, a majority of policy decision making is taken out of their hands.
The BBC's Paxman spectularly stuffed up an interview with the Police Chief responsible for Soham, and now it is reporting several articles all associated with "police mistakes", it looks like the BBC has an axe to grind, and disturbingly this is in the style typical of trashy tabloids.
For example; this article states that "Many police forces are still failing to enter details of convictions and arrests into the national police computer within the required time limit", but in the Huntley case there were no convictions and details _were_ entered into the computer system but then removed in accordance with the data protection act, the point being made in the interview.
Again another article detailing Huntley's shocking past, as if to call police attention to it, but on closer examination you can only determine,as the police did, that Huntley was a "dodgy character", as none of the sexually motivated allegations came to anything.
The tie-ins go on, yet another report claims that the police missed the only computer record of Huntley for burglary because he changed his name, and then claims the school would not have employed him as a caretaker if it had been discovered. But how this supposes that Huntley would not have murdered someone if he hadn't been a caretaker is misleading.
The "human error" admitted by the police was in reference to the name change, which related to a burglary and not to the sexual offence accusations.
I think a case accusing the police of somehow "causing" the murder is unwarrented. Ironically the BBC also have this article on "Trial By Media", referring to Huntley and Carr, yet they seem unaware their own campaign against the police is exactly the same thing.
The divide between personal privacy and protection of children is a difficult one, and is the subject up for discussion, not the attitude or behaviour of the police, who are only responsible for executing the law, a majority of policy decision making is taken out of their hands.
S
sad_mung
Guest
- Thread starter
- #52
D
dysfunction
Guest
- Thread starter
- #53
I think the police did a very good job and I think they were very thorough.
I completely agree with Xane. The BBC seem to have lost the plot when it comes to reporting with a degree of integrity and impartiality.
They get all wound up about something quite trivial and go on a rampage.
Unfortunately most reporting is done this way these days:
1) Make an accusation / Wild Statement
2) Create a huge story from these statements
3) Collect facts if they become available
4) Change your original report to include facts and change your arguments...
I completely agree with Xane. The BBC seem to have lost the plot when it comes to reporting with a degree of integrity and impartiality.
They get all wound up about something quite trivial and go on a rampage.
Unfortunately most reporting is done this way these days:
1) Make an accusation / Wild Statement
2) Create a huge story from these statements
3) Collect facts if they become available
4) Change your original report to include facts and change your arguments...
S
SilverHood
Guest
- Thread starter
- #54
Xane, did you see the interview on Newsnight last night?
The presenter set the police chief up, the police chief walked into it, and he couldn' talk his way out, so he left.
The police officer (Chief Constable David Westwood) knew they fucked up. But they wouldn't take the responsibilty for the fuck up (blaming the data protection act)....
The police should admit that there's a problem, they should investigate how to fix it, and then they should fix it, Rather than spend millions of taxpayers money on commisons, public enquiries investigating something that should have sorted in the first place!
The presenter set the police chief up, the police chief walked into it, and he couldn' talk his way out, so he left.
The police officer (Chief Constable David Westwood) knew they fucked up. But they wouldn't take the responsibilty for the fuck up (blaming the data protection act)....
The police should admit that there's a problem, they should investigate how to fix it, and then they should fix it, Rather than spend millions of taxpayers money on commisons, public enquiries investigating something that should have sorted in the first place!
X
xane
Guest
- Thread starter
- #55
The BBC interview blamed the police for Soham, but used the arguments for a wider issue. The police did not "fuck up" in Soham, there was nothing anyone could have done to prevent those deaths.
Huntley admitted using another name for the checks, why didn't the school or the LEA re-check ? Would be considered insensitive to have the school Headmaster on TV and accuse him of a "fuck up" ? If so, why is it not insensitive to blame the police too, that is why the Chief was there, due to the sensitivity of the case.
The wider issue of how offenders escape notice is not a police concern, but belongs with the ministery.
The BBC are trying to defend trashy reporting again, and using their website to do so, like they did with Andrew Gillighan in the Dr Kelly affair.
Look at those various BBC reports, find somewhere an indication that the police screwed up over Huntley, not the wider issue.
Huntley admitted using another name for the checks, why didn't the school or the LEA re-check ? Would be considered insensitive to have the school Headmaster on TV and accuse him of a "fuck up" ? If so, why is it not insensitive to blame the police too, that is why the Chief was there, due to the sensitivity of the case.
The wider issue of how offenders escape notice is not a police concern, but belongs with the ministery.
The BBC are trying to defend trashy reporting again, and using their website to do so, like they did with Andrew Gillighan in the Dr Kelly affair.
Look at those various BBC reports, find somewhere an indication that the police screwed up over Huntley, not the wider issue.
X
xane
Guest
- Thread starter
- #56
Here is the latest BBC report, again they mention that police records about Huntley were deleted from the computer in accordance to the data protection act, but then attack the police for not putting records on the computer, which was not the case in Soham, so how does this relate ?
Why are the BBC mixing these things up ?
Why are the BBC mixing these things up ?
C
Cdr
Guest
- Thread starter
- #57
What the police did was correct.
Lets say, you're a person who works with children (a teacher, fireman, whatever). A child makes a false accusation about you (which has been done in the past), after a criminal investigation its found that the child is lying, and nothing happened. You've been investigated for a child sex crime, if we were to believe the BBC then this investigation should stay on Police records forever, and any job you then go for this would be put forward. Is this fair? Is this right?
The fact is, keeping records of crimes that we didn't commit is totally stupid, regardless of the type of crime.
I am, of course, talking objectively but I do expect the standard response of 'It should have been different for Huntley'.
E
exxxie
Guest
- Thread starter
- #58
Scurrelous accusations are where a computer system that gathers this so called 'soft evidence' falls down. It happens all the time to teachers. The whole Data Protection act needs a massive re-think to bring it up to date in various areas. The guidlines state that data deletion is at the discretion of the chief constable.. right there you have a problem. Ive always found the more you leave to peoples' discretion, the more problems your going to end up with.
I felt genuinly sorry for that poor Chief constable from Humberside when he was interviewed yesterday. It was disgraceful the way some 'journalists' called for his resignation or asked him on Live TV for an act of penance.. one jornalist hit such a tone of moral outrage you'd have thought this policeman had murdered someone. Paxman and Jon Snow both fell onto the bandwagon.. its terribly hard not to get caught up in the emotional aspects of a case like this, we still drag The Moors Murders up with demonic distaste after all these years.
Someone correct me here, but arent background checks for teachers and airport staff etc etc hopelessly backlogged still? Lets hope this enquiry actually leads to things being DONE.. and not another sham like so many enquiries before it.
I felt genuinly sorry for that poor Chief constable from Humberside when he was interviewed yesterday. It was disgraceful the way some 'journalists' called for his resignation or asked him on Live TV for an act of penance.. one jornalist hit such a tone of moral outrage you'd have thought this policeman had murdered someone. Paxman and Jon Snow both fell onto the bandwagon.. its terribly hard not to get caught up in the emotional aspects of a case like this, we still drag The Moors Murders up with demonic distaste after all these years.
Someone correct me here, but arent background checks for teachers and airport staff etc etc hopelessly backlogged still? Lets hope this enquiry actually leads to things being DONE.. and not another sham like so many enquiries before it.
D
dysfunction
Guest
- Thread starter
- #59
This kind of "journalism" makes me angry. They have no right to judge people like this....
They are not doing it for the sake of helping anyone. They do it to sell newspapers and get people to watch the news.
The news is becoming more like a circus show than a vehicle of information.