Who Complains About a Peedo Killer?

Breadman wrote:We have laws for a reason.

If we suddenly abandon them and all start settling our personal disputes by meting out summary justice, we become nothing more than a bunch of highly involved Chimps with (shit) iPhones and Netflix subscriptions.

That's what makes us human - the capacity for measured, rational thought.

Take that away and society collapses in about five minutes.

But we've already established that fact on here before......several times.

Perhaps if there was more street justice people might be less inclined to commit vicious crimes.

In fairness, if this guy has done so many horrible things, he shouldn't be walking the streets. It's another case of the justice system working for the perpetrator and not the victims or general public as a whole. If they'd have done their job in the first place this would never have happened.

Natasha Whittam wrote:


Perhaps if there was more street justice people might be less inclined to commit vicious crimes.

Ok, I'll play along for a bit longer.

Are you basically advocating a return to the days before we had a proper legal system and an independent police force?

A return to a time where you could be stabbed and left for dead in a gutter if some thug spotted you returning from the Spar with your bag of Twirls and decided he wanted them?

You'd be the first one on here demanding that the authorities did something.

Breadman wrote:

Ok, I'll play along for a bit longer.

Are you basically advocating a return to the days before we had a proper legal system and an independent police force?

A return to a time where you could be stabbed and left for dead in a gutter if some thug spotted you returning from the Spar with your bag of Twirls and decided he wanted them?

You'd be the first one on here demanding that the authorities did something.

I wouldn't go that far, Twirls should always be sacrosanct.

But yes, I think convicted peedos and rapists should be fair game for law abiding people. I don't think anyone would disagree we'd be better off without them.

Some sort of Running Man type game show?

Pitch it to Channel 5 because it's right up their alley, judging from the braying, bear-pit atmosphere that surrounded the Celebrity Big Brother Eviction show last night.

(I am told.....)

Anyone seen the purge?

Watched it last week. That's the film that popped into my mind as well reading this thread.

What was a sex monster living at home next to children?

Shame on the police.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Breadman wrote:

Ok, I'll play along for a bit longer.

Are you basically advocating a return to the days before we had a proper legal system and an independent police force?

A return to a time where you could be stabbed and left for dead in a gutter if some thug spotted you returning from the Spar with your bag of Twirls and decided he wanted them?

You'd be the first one on here demanding that the authorities did something.

I wouldn't go that far, Twirls should always be sacrosanct.

But yes, I think convicted peedos and rapists should be fair game for law abiding people. I don't think anyone would disagree we'd be better off without them.

I agree fair game,if the law did a proper job in the first place then they wouldn't still be allowed to live amongst us.

Remember that time a "peado" was burnt to death outside his house by two moronic dead head chavs.... turned out he just had learning difficulties.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:Remember that time a "peado" was burnt to death outside his house by two moronic dead head chavs.... turned out he just had learning difficulties.

Terrible, but what's that got to do with this thread?

While I personally feel that a paedophile is a sick individual I think it only reasonable to point out that even the rabid red top papers had to admit this man had not been charged with or convicted of anything for more than THIRTY YEARS when his killer decided to dispense her own brand of Justice. That's a damned long time, longer than some of the posters on here have been alive. There is no evidence at all to suggest he was up to anything now or had been in the recent past. 

Child abuse is a horrible thing and rightly viewed with disgust by just about every sane person around but this particular man appears not to have committed any sort of crime let alone that since the days of the Thatcher Government. The more I read about this case the more convinced I become that Sarah Sands murdered him believing the Sun or the Daily Star would make a heroine out of her and she'd get off scot free. She didn't do this to protect her children, if she wanted to protect them she wouldn't have risked getting her butt sent to jail for life. She picked an elderly man of almost eighty, went to his home and deliberately stabbed him to death. Maybe she thinks that makes her a heroine. 

In my eyes she's a disgusting individual who was no better than the man she killed and probably worse because she has the gall to claim she was "protecting her kids" when there was nothing, not ONE shred of evidence to suggest he'd gone anywhere near them or anyone else's kids since before Sarah Sands herself was born. She should have got life, she's lucky she got such a light sentence even when it was doubled. She's a murderer, plain and simple.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:While I personally feel that a paedophile is a sick individual I think it only reasonable to point out that even the rabid red top papers had to admit this man had not been charged with or convicted of anything for more than THIRTY YEARS when his killer decided to dispense her own brand of Justice. That's a damned long time, longer than some of the posters on here have been alive. There is no evidence at all to suggest he was up to anything now or had been in the recent past. 

Child abuse is a horrible thing and rightly viewed with disgust by just about every sane person around but this particular man appears not to have committed any sort of crime let alone that since the days of the Thatcher Government. The more I read about this case the more convinced I become that Sarah Sands murdered him believing the Sun or the Daily Star would make a heroine out of her and she'd get off scot free. She didn't do this to protect her children, if she wanted to protect them she wouldn't have risked getting her butt sent to jail for life. She picked an elderly man of almost eighty, went to his home and deliberately stabbed him to death. Maybe she thinks that makes her a heroine. 

In my eyes she's a disgusting individual who was no better than the man she killed and probably worse because she has the gall to claim she was "protecting her kids" when there was nothing, not ONE shred of evidence to suggest he'd gone anywhere near them or anyone else's kids since before Sarah Sands herself was born. She should have got life, she's lucky she got such a light sentence even when it was doubled. She's a murderer, plain and simple.

Once a peedo, always a peedo. There's no cure. The fact his crimes took place in the 80's is irrelevant.

Are you doing a PhD based around the idea that it's possible to prove that perfectly rational, sane people will continue to bite and repeat their arguments if presented with the same topic over and over again, even if it's already been flogged to death and a consensus view reached?

Or something....?

I'm reminded of the PAEDIATRICIAN that was hounded because someone in Pompey didn't know their halbard from their hearse. We have quite a good justice system, let them handle it.