The best ever argument for hanging...
![[Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/ff59d1823af88ce31147c2520d3428aa.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 1,866 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Clearly when the revolting character in this video was found guilty of mere manslaughter there was a miscarraige of justice.
It should have been murder and he should have been strung up by the neck until dead. That is what he deserves and a civilised society would have seen to it. Such scum as this do not deserve to live.
Watch how he smiles and laughs when Andrew Neale asks him about the woman he bludgeoned to death.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/email/coffeehouse/6441168/why-prisoners-shouldnt-have-the-vote.thtml
Dont get me on to such monsters being allowed to vote.
It should have been murder and he should have been strung up by the neck until dead. That is what he deserves and a civilised society would have seen to it. Such scum as this do not deserve to live.
Watch how he smiles and laughs when Andrew Neale asks him about the woman he bludgeoned to death.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/email/coffeehouse/6441168/why-prisoners-shouldnt-have-the-vote.thtml
Dont get me on to such monsters being allowed to vote.
0
Comments
But his smugness was hard to stomach and yes he has served his sentence blah blah blah but there is a line.
Mr Cameron said today that he felt no prisoner should be allowed to vote regardless. So if you didn't pay your council tax and were put in prison you would lose your right to vote.
Luckily there are few people in this world who would make statements like Barry, calling for another human being to be killed. Capital punishment is illegal anywhere within the EU, and that will never change.
How many times..... how many times have we had a conviction quashed COMPLETELY because false evidence was given, a jury was misdirected and a wrong conviction and sentence was passed ---- ONLY, .. only to find out later they were not guilty at all.
Is someone going to say that murderers should get a bolt through the head as soon as they are found guilty.
What human rights should we suspend? Should we allow torture in prisons?
Perhaps Barry would like to crimanlise homosexuality and have me strung up by the neck until dead.
Well at least Andrew Neil mentioned that he is living in Hull which could backfire spectacularly on him.
I did watch the video - all of it. I didn't like how he came across, although I thought Andrew was a bit too abrasive towards him. I don't think Andrew Neil was wrong, but I think he misjudged the danger and it decended to insults from Hirst.
I'm just pointing out that voting is a human right and prisoners are entitled to vote, all of them, and yes even the murderers, even those who will never be released. I don't believe you can draw a line. Either something is a Human Right and universal, or it isn't a Human Right at all.
Certainly nobody should be making statements calling for someone to be killed, and I gave one clear reason why not, although there are many reasons. You are free to disagree and endorse killing murderers if you want. It's a forum for discussion - you give your opinion and someone agrees with you, or disagrees with you.
No article of the European Convention on Human Rights gives the right to vote any more than it gives the right to eat ice cream or watch the latest Hollywood blockbuster.
From what I've seen and hear Mr Hirst is just about the lowest form of humanity I've been unfortunate to come across, he has brutally killed without remorse and done little more than sponge off the rest of us during and since his heinous and merciless act. I sincerely hope that the welfare cuts seriously hurt his lifestyle and soon.
And who gets to make these 'holier than thou' judgments on others?
So your argument basically is that not only should those who commit crimes shall not live but they shouldn't be given human rights when they are alive? Every citizen of any country in the world deserves the right to live, and to be sentenced to prison for committing crime - and the right to vote for whichever political movement they see fit.
If you don't like it, hop on a plane and go to another country that has selective "voting" rights, or beheading's...or whatever it is that actually floats your boat.
I've come across Hirst's types many times before, there are a lot of them around and If I had things my way, the likes of him would come out of jail.......................feet first having faced the electric chair rather than the noose! :mad: :mad: :mad:
Almost all prisoners profess their innocence, and there are far far fewer miscarriages of justice than there are honest convictions.
For this reason, I would err on the side of percentages, and suspend all prisoner's rights to vote, concluding that when they commit a crime, they alienate themselves from society by their misdeeds, and therefore do not deserve the priviledge of the vote to influence anything within it.
Irony, you commenting on the disturbed (if not detached from society) mentality of a killer, only to then go on and describe in detail how you would like to see said person killed.
Sorry, but what makes your mentality any different from this guys?
There is a difference. Convicted killers choose to do their killings quite often and their victim has no choice. My stance is, IF you kill, then you could well face the death penalty as a result. Killers have a choice, victims don't and thats what you can't get round! :mad:
Quite a stupid thing to say since he won the case, and in fact as far back as 2004 it had already been acknowledged that he had a valid case.
"Protocol 1, Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees ‘free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature’"
It's always good to have an opinion, even better if you know what you're talking about, and have facts to back them up.
Cameron announced today that they had to comply. It's been in the papers. It's been on the radio. It's been all over the TV.
As for the appellant in this case, as I said I didn't think he came across very well in that interview - but I try not to judge on first impressions. I understand he did radio interviews and people didn't like him after that either (point being they couldn't see him, so if he was smiling they wouldn't have known). However, what he was saying was correct, IMO, and in the courts opinion, that prisoners should be entitled to vote. It IS a human right, because it's covered in the Human Rights convention, and in our Human Rights Act.
I'm afraid that I don't know the details of what he did, why, the background, how he has behaved, whether he's shown any or sincere remorse, or any other details. I'm judging the content of what he had to say.
Usual useless, unrealistic rebuttal, the death penalty is circular and illogical - and has no place in civilized society. No amount of knee-jerk, emotive reactionary rhetoric's will change that.
As for this man, he's either completely ill or evil (or perhaps both), he needs to be taken away from society, not hanged on a rope as some meat-flag trophy masquerading as "justice".
You have a disturbing view of the world if you think an 'eye for an eye' solves anything.
Luckily we live in a society where extreme and marginal views aren't something we endorse via our legal system.
I really wish all those with extreme views like killing other people via hanging or the electric chair would leave the country and go somewhere where they have these things.
They would be much happier, and I know the rest of us would be.
Agreed. When I hear of people who want to include death as one of their preferred forms of punishment, I find it a bit creepy.
No apply your own words to your own response mate.
Your defending killers, and that for me is outragous! Why should they live if they have taken a life?!!!!!
As I said it gives no right than to eat ice cream of watch the latest Hollywood blockbuster:
Protocol 1, Article 1 - property
Article 1 provides for the rights to the peaceful enjoyment of one's possessions.
So any prisoner can demand all of their possessions are transferred to their cell, fridge, ice cream, tv, dvd player, dvds and all, to refuse would be just as much a breach of the human rights as not allowing them to vote.
Describing anyone as "scum" devalues your opinion. There is no test for "fitness to vote" in this country, so I'm sure plenty of people get to vote, notably ex-cons, who you would probably find equally offensive and not fit to live. Fortunately for democracy people who are so quick to judge others don't get to choose who can vote.
And I wish people with liberal views on killers being spared the death penalty would leave the country!
You really think your in the majority with your thinking?
Your not very up to date if you do. If it was put to a referendum, the death penalty would be back.
That makes no sense but I'll try to bypass that, I'm not defending murder, if that's what you thought I meant that I can only conclude you cannot comprehend English.
I'm defending human rights. You'd rather live in the cave-men era (because that is essentially what you are suggesting, killing those who YOU personally deem "not worthy" to live, and when they are living not treat them as humans at all).
How about you move to South Africa or Iran - their crime policy might be on par with yours.
Now you're just being silly. The same silly arguments some who want to ridicule these rights use to say that they can't even be locked up because that is contrary to free association, or other rights.
We can see past these silly arguments. Prison is a loss of freedom - that is the punishment. It is accepted that living in an institution like that requires people to adhere to a set of rules for the smooth running, such as eating at set times, etc. Those are not a punishment, they are required for the smooth running. They do not infringe any human rights.
If you say silly things like we can't restrict free movement and association, so we can't lock up prisoners, then we can't force children to go to school, because we are restricting their free movement and association.
These are all silly arguments. It's like saying people can't be forced to attend work because it restricts their choice of where to go and when.
You take a liberal stance, thats up to you, but the death penatly needs to be bought back. Its the right thing to do and most people agree, and it will deter a lot of would be killers from murdering in the first place. I work for the public and when it comes to criminals, the thing that doesn't make them think twice is the lack of deteretns out there!
By the way, have you ever been the victim of a serious crime?
I'm asking because I sense you haven't and that could be why your so liberal on this.
I didn't right the dumb ass piece of legislation, nor am I one of the moronic judiciary who decides which silliness to enforce or not, nor do I hand out your money to chancers like Hirst demanding legal aid to try and challenge the rules using the said dumb ass legislation. But don't for one moment think that it won't happen and the "votes for lags" will be an interesting little precedence just you watch.
I think my sort of arguments would win out hands down against extremist oddballs, every time.
I think the vast majority of people in this country, whatever you think they think, don't think, like you.
nb. In answer to the question you added to your post, I was mugged and beaten up several times when I was younger. For some reason in the last 15 years no person has ever challanged me. I've no idea why - must be something about my body language.