View Full Version : Myra Hindley's Dead

15th Nov 2002, 18:15
...so today's news wasn't all bad then.


Anthony Carn
15th Nov 2002, 18:29
Except that she did'nt go slowly enough or painfully enough, however slow and painful it was. :mad:

15th Nov 2002, 19:25
Flatspin. I do believe she killed children in a horrific way. Whatever you or anyone else says, she should have been given the lethal injection years ago and not allowed to live as long as she did.

tony draper
15th Nov 2002, 19:33
Nah BRL, hanging had much more class than that luvie lethal injection thing.
I remember the case at the time, its hard to explain to people who weren't around then, the pure horror and hatred those two caused.
It would have been a brave Home Secretary that released her

15th Nov 2002, 19:43
Flat Spin,
So what is an adequate punishment for the torture and murder of 5 children?
Do you think she should have been allowed out after 10 years, 20, 30?
Would you have released her had you been home secretary?
She was allowed to live because the laws on hanging were changed a few months before the trial otherwise she would have died a foot taller many years ago.
Sorry for being predictable but I expect she is now stoking the fires down below (and I don't mean Australia).


(edited cos I cant spell proper)

tony draper
15th Nov 2002, 19:56
Bet she's relieved about that. ;)

15th Nov 2002, 20:03

So don't dignify the thread with a response! :(

Edited to say: Well done, you've reached that decision yourself!

15th Nov 2002, 20:19
Kind of ironic that she chose to ‘depart the fix’ on the very same day that the whole of the country is raising money for ‘Children in Need’

Mr G.

15th Nov 2002, 20:27
'whole life' tariff ?

Let off lightly if you ask me.

Never mind. Karma will out in the end.

15th Nov 2002, 21:50
If they had let her out somebody would have killed her anyway.

Surely every similar offender should face the same fate.

Every child now pays for her crimes and others like her. Every single child abduction chips away at the freedom of every child.
The older ones among us remember being able to explore the countryside with our friends without the fear of monsters such as her. Call it innocence.
Well it's gone now. Even decent people are almost afraid to talk to children without the fear of appearing strange. Children are brought up not to talk to "strangers"- fellow human beings after all. How sad.

Time can blur her dreadful deeds, but I am sure the parents of those poor children remember every horrible second as though it was yesterday.

Good riddance.

15th Nov 2002, 22:52
I personally have problems with the length of time that Myra Hindley was kept in jail.

Was she still a danger to society after serving her life sentence (ie. 25 years)?

If not why was she not released? What a waste of taxpayers' money.

Now if capital punishment had been the sentence, then we'd have saved a fortune. But that is a different argument.

tony draper
15th Nov 2002, 22:58
Some crimes are unforgivable, all serial killer should be locked up for life, I would prefer to see them hang myself,but we lack the moral courage to do that, but life imprisonment should at least mean life, with no hope ever of parole,they should die in prison and be buried inside the prison walls as they were in the past.
I don't care how many open Uni degrees they get , keep them banged up.

Moses Mashomba
15th Nov 2002, 23:44
Got to agree with Tony and all.

Some crimes are unforgiveable, most particularly those perpretrated against children who, after all, are the most vunerable and least able to defend themselves.

The killing of a child is totally and utterly unforgiveable in any one's book, regardless of color, race or creed. My view is that this should not just apply to those that kill children, but equally to those that perpetrate such evil crimes against them, such as sexual abuse, which in the eyes of the child might be worse punishment than having been slaughtered in the first place!

I once remarked to someone how uncivilised it was for the Saudi's to axe a thief's hand off for stealing! I was surprised when this person said, how civilised to walk down the street without fear of being pick-pocketed or having your house burgled or your wife and children raped! Maybe a bit extreme, but he had a point.

We should definitely rid society from such evil people.

compressor stall
16th Nov 2002, 00:08
Apparently in the US it costs more to execute a prisoner than it does to keep him/her in jail for life.

Select Zone Five
16th Nov 2002, 00:12
This seems to be the only case where life actually meant life...I hope she suffered and sod the tax cost on this one, she didn't deserve to ever see the light of day.

16th Nov 2002, 00:22
Apparently doctors have described her condition as "satisfactory".

Speaking as an (almost) Mancunian, hopefully her punishment is only just beginning.

16th Nov 2002, 07:02
Anybody who celebrates in the death of a human being is a very very sad individual

16th Nov 2002, 07:23
foghorn ,

I think even if she wasn't a risk to society after those 25 years it would be very difficult for her to start a new life anywhere else in the country. Being as infamous as Hindley is / was and that recent photos of her were published in the national newspapers each time the debate for her parole came up, it would be even more difficult for her to keep a low profile.

I also feel that no Home Secretary would ever have wanted to allow her to be released should she re-offend and also for her own safety and the public uproar and the lynchmob that would assemble should that happen.

Who would possibly want that on their conscience if she had been released and then re-offended?

Unfortunately when Hindley and Brady were finally caught and sentenced, capital punishment had been abolished some 6 months prior to their trial.

The death penalty was abolished as there had been several miscarriages of justice, eg Timoth Evans who was wrongly hanged for the murder of his wife. It was later to be found that John Christie had actually commited the murder, plus several others back in 1950.

Admittedly this time the police had the right people, but what would have happened if they were wrong? They could have then sent two innocent people to the gallows, the children would still have been killed and the police would have to deal with they sentanced the wrong person / people to death and the real culprits are still out there. The death penalty was abolished for the simple reason of "what if we have sentenced the wrong person"?

I remember seeing a documentary a few years ago, where police officers involved in the case mentioned that they regretted not having caught them sooner. Not only for the lives that it would have saved, but the level of punishment that they would have received.

The problems I have are not the severity of the punishment, but the strange way in that punishments doled out in more recent times seem to be far more lenient.

At the time of the trial, I believe a "life sentence" meant a minimum of 25 years. I haven't read fully into the actual sentence
so I can not comment whether it was a life sentence for each murder.

How can that be compared with the sentence bestowed on someone like Ronnie Biggs who was sentenced to serve a minimum of 30 years imprisonment for his part in an unarmed robbery where noone was killed. ?

Nothing can replace the children that she murdered along with Brady, and I feel even more for the families that still have yet to be able to give their children a proper burial as when they offered to help the police track the remains, they were unable to remember where they had buried them.

I'm sure the world will breathe a similar sigh of relief when Rose West finally departs.

16th Nov 2002, 15:30
Punishment to fit the crime.

The torment of the families didn't come to an end after 25 years.

She robbed those children of more than 25 years of their lives. Why should she pay with anything less ?

16th Nov 2002, 16:02
As a mother, I cannot lament the death of that evil woman.
Thank God she was never set free.

Human Factor
16th Nov 2002, 16:14

That's 'cos it takes them so long to get round to it. Should be sentenced, automatically appealed and if appeal not succesful sentence carried out within a month. More humane to the prisoner as well.

16th Nov 2002, 17:05
Yes, she`s dead , and at no loss to society. I hope she made good use of the 36 years we gave her to reflect on her actions.

16th Nov 2002, 18:24
I was at a works do and suddenly Champagne started appearing then the Boss called for quiet and announced that the bitch was dead. We had a minutes silence for the victims then got pissed in celebration.

Life MUST mean life, otherwise why not sentence to a numbered term.

Some people do not deserve to continue living. She was one of them.

16th Nov 2002, 18:29
Never understood why we kept discussing whether she should be set free -- instead of discussing why we're not keeping other offenders fcuking well locked up.

16th Nov 2002, 18:31
I can never believe in Capital Punishment because of the number of miscarriage of Justices we have seen and the likelyhood of sending an innocent person to their death.

However we do need a sentance of life imprisonment to mean that in such crimes , not the 15 years or less that seems to prevail these days.

What I find most interesting is that we have people who committed crimes say within the last 20 years equally as heinous as the moors murders released , wheras in the 1960s they did at least sentance people appropriately and they will still be behind bars.

Myra Hindley died where she should have done behind bars rotting away, but how the heck did she manage to have a 50 a day cigarette habit in prison which led to her early demise at the age of 60!!

16th Nov 2002, 19:24
Hindley is dead and so are her victims.
( could have been your kids).

Time to move on.

But the Bulger lot are alive and well.

So first item makes me and a lot of others happy.
(not the bit in brackets)


The second item makes all the bleeding hearts happy.

Whats the arguement?

16th Nov 2002, 20:30
Well said Bid Red `L`.

How the hell can anyone feel any kind of forgiveness or remorse or "they`ve done their time" to someone who tortured and killed children.

It doesnt get any lower than that, she never ever paid for her crime.

I hope she rots in hell, big time.



16th Nov 2002, 21:24
Very well said!

Let's all celebrate the Great British Justice system, that let those two go free; that gave them new lives and will pay to keep them free, until they do it again!

And if you were powerless in that decision (as a Brit of course); it was because you never wrote your parliamentarian or you didn't give a sh!t!

16th Nov 2002, 21:37
I will make no comment on Hindley other than her crimes were apalling and she deserved to suffer the consequences; How much she was indoctrinated by Brady who was the true architect of the crimes I don't know. But the famous photo of her became an icon of evil and crime, she is the one people remember the most.

What really does worry me about this case is that we have reached a very dangerous situation when the tabloid press are dictating the length of sentence a murderer should serve. Were it not for The Sun, she would have been released some years ago. Why was she not released after serving the 25 years recommended by the judge at sentencing? Quite simply, the Home Secretaries were to scared to release her because of the clamour from the tabloid press - and that is what I object to. I believe our justice system should allow all offenders the chance to reform and rehabilitate - and I certainly don't believe that the tabloid (gutter) press should have any say in the matter whatsoever. That is what happened in this case and the state of our justice system is the worse for it.

Whether she was really the embodiment of evil as The Sun suggests, or whether she was just indoctrinated and led astray by an evil man I don't know. And nor do The Sun - but they have persuaded their readership she was.

Flying Lawyer
16th Nov 2002, 21:43
"Anybody who celebrates in the death of a human being is a very very sad individual"
Do you mean the contributors to this discussion?
Or Brady and Hindley who not only celebrated the death of human beings (children) but, in the case of Lesley Ann Down, took photographs and tape-recorded her sobbing, terrified screaming, calling for her mother, begging them to stop, pleading to Hindley to help her and then a final loud scream ... so they could celebrate the death as often as they wanted simply by playing the tape.

Lesley Ann's mother wanted the tape to be included in a recent television documentary about Brady and Hindley so that people would know that Hindley played an active part throughout, holding the 10 year old child down as Brady murdered her.
The television company declined to broadcast the tape because it was considered to be too harrowing even in these days of 'anything goes' television.
There are are some crimes so bad that Life should mean Life, however long that may be, and some so terrible that it isn't "very, very sad" to be pleased the world is rid of such an evil person, just understandable human reaction.

" .......... wheras in the 1960s they did at least sentance people appropriately and they will still be behind bars."
The sentence for murder is the same now as it was when Brady and Hindley were sentenced: Life Imprisonment. Judges make recommendations, but the Home Secretary decides the actual time served.
That may change very soon. If it does, time will tell whether for better.

16th Nov 2002, 22:42
I hope Hindley died after a long and painfull death-struggle. Monsters like this need to be removed from this planet pronto, every day they're around is a slap in the face of the human race.

Child abusers like these are the scum of the earth and desperate ills call for desperate remedies.


16th Nov 2002, 22:56
Just a comment on the Bulger two.

I seem to remember it was a decision of the so called European court which triggered their release.

I ,along with most of the British public no doubt ,would never have believed until too late that the British government was so gutless and had appointed such legal lunatics that they would actually allow the release.

I am pretty certain that most other European governments would have worked out sufficient logic to enable them to circumvent the European court, or in the case of some, just ignored it.

Meanwhile the legal lunacy continues.

17th Nov 2002, 02:52
posted by Flying Lawyer
"Anybody who celebrates in the death of a human being is a very very sad individual"
Do you mean the contributors to this discussion?
Or Brady and Hindley who not only celebrated the death of human beings "

I thought it was clear that "anyone" encompasses all of the above.

Still, it was a nice emotional post of yours.

17th Nov 2002, 02:55
bluskis, no EU member state can ignore the European Court. It is a supranational organisation and as dictated by the terms of the Treaty of Rome is the highest court in the EU. It would be ridiculous if member states were allowed to pick and choose the laws and recommendations they wished to adhere to.

In my opinion the decision to release the Bulger killers was the correct one, they were only just above the age of criminal responsibilty when they murdered Bulger and I don't believe they can be held fully responsible for their actions. Their crime was the product of economic deprivation. Blame their parents, if anyone. Hindley was different, she was old enough to know what she was doing.

Big G.
17th Nov 2002, 03:48
Excellent thread, lots of good comments.

I will no doubt be banished for this reply, but thought I would offer it anyway.

A few years ago I spent some time in the company of Ms Hindley. I was not born when she committed her crimes, but like most others was made aware by my parents and by reading books and articles describing her terrible actions.
I had in my mind an image of the person I believed Hindley to be. I pictured her as a dangerous killer, who was the living spirit of all that I considered to be evil. The truth was, when I met her she was simply a frail and weak old lady. I was some what dissappointed that the woman I saw did not live up to my expectations. I admit that I did feel very uneasy in her company, as I knew what she had done and what she was responsible for.

As a Policeman I often think that society is too soft, and we are being overtaken by liberal Do-Gooders. I have often wanted to see people strung-up, after knowing what they have done to other human beings.
The problem is, that in this case, I believe that WEDGE has got it right. I believe that Hindley was not afforded British justice. She was judged by the media and the media decided her fate.

I fully accept that her victims had no justice or right of appeal before they were tortured and killed. My heart goes out to them, and I hope they are happy in their new world. I have recently been heavily involved in the Holly and Jessica case. I gave all my effort to find them both and I was there when they were found. Please do not reply this and say that I don't understand and I am being narrow minded. I stood and looked at what was done to those two little girls. I know anger, and I saw it first hand on that Saturday evening. I hope that nobody ever has to see such a sight again.

I just cant help but feel very uneasy that the British justice system, the best system in the world, the system that I represent everyday was undermined in this case.

Hindley was rightly convicted and sent to jail for what she did. She was the offender and she was found guilty by her peers. The problem is, where do we draw the line? All offenders convicted at court are given a punishment, most of us accept this, and agree that once the sentence is served, then they have repaid their debt to society. We give the responsiblilty of how long the sentence should be to our judges. We trust their judgement to do the right thing.

In this case, we have deceided to ignore the judge, he said 25yrs. Since that time has passed, the judicial review has been carried out by the boys and girls of Fleet street. No Home secretary was going to allow her release, think of how many votes they would lose. No matter what you think, those children will not come back by leaving Hindley in a cell.

We either trust the British justice system or we don't, we can't pick and choose when we do. I work in it everyday, and I trust it. I have more reason than most not to trust it.

I hope you can understand what I am trying to say, I know it sounds weird.

aka Big G.

Alty Meter
17th Nov 2002, 10:13
Spot on Flying Lawyer.
But I'm one of those Banana99 thinks is "very, very sad."

Interesting post Big G.
Hindley may or may not have still been a threat to the community after all these years. I don't know. Maybe not. But, as FL said, there are some crimes so evil that life imprisonment should mean just that.

17th Nov 2002, 11:53
Very interesting post Big G, though I don't know why you thought you would be banished for it!

The gutter press have got their way in the case of Hindley and that is not justice, that is trial by media and it should not be allowed to happen. The Sun take the easy and populist view because that is what sells papers. No one should ignore the stinking hypocrisy there. Just brand these people as evil and leave it at that. Well I don't know what makes people commit such crimes and as I said before nor do The Sun.

The same goes for Holly and Jessica, and I sympathise Big G that you had to see what you saw. It was never reported in the press what state their bodies were in because it was thought to be too upsetting but I got the picture that they were in a pretty awful state.

If there really are people who are just 'evil', and in my opinion there may be, or whether they are just utterly misguided or ill, we do not know. To use the term evil is to add the supernatural element and that is something that we just don't properly understand.

Alty Meter
17th Nov 2002, 12:19
I agree with your disdain for the gutter Press. It's a sad (but accurate) reflection on this country that the Sun, Mirror and Mail are the biggest selling papers. But in the case of Brady/Hindley I think the Press reflect the overwhelming majority view of the country.
I don't buy the argument that every Home Secretary from both parties has refused to release them just because they'll lose votes. A single issue like that doesn't swing an election.

BTW, if I'd said 'sinful' I could understand you saying that added a supernatural element. Why does 'evil' add a supernatural element?

17th Nov 2002, 12:47
Big G, as a copper, and one who claims to disdain about liberals, you sure as hell sound like one.

Anyone who has a part in snuffing out the lives of children does not deserve to be a part of our society, at any time.

If their is DNA evidence, then execution should follow the guilty verdict damn swiftly. Simple as that, set in stone.

As for the bulger killers; caused by social circumstance was it??:mad: :mad: only two poor kids EVER were they??
Then how come it was premeditated?? Did you know they did a "dry run" of the killing a couple of weeks before with a child, to see if it would work??

At least that one wasn't forced to eat batteries though before being halved in two by a train.

Circumstances my @rse. I grew up very "working class" as you would term it, and to hear these sort of excuses being made makes my, and every other person of a working class or poor background's, blood boil.

Those two little [email protected] deserve to hang; as much now as then.

17th Nov 2002, 14:06
Martin, I almost agree that any person who is involved in snuffing out the lives of children do not deserve to be a part of out society, at any time.

You have taken the easy way out however. Which newspaper do you read by the way?

If the Bulger killers had been just a few months younger, or if they had done this in certain other european countries (In Spain the age of criminal responsibility is 16 I think), then they could have been charged with no offence and their identities would never have been released to the media. It's far too easy to say they should hang. I say again I don't think they were old enough to be held fully responsible for their actions.

"only two poor kids EVER were they??", well obviously not but are you seriously trying to suggest that this crime was nothing to do with circumstance and social deprivation. What about their parents, what about the fact that they were allowed to watch the kind of videos that only adults should be allowed to watch (If at all). When you are that age you are very impressionable.

If you think they should hang, well I am glad you don't have a say in the matter and furthermore I am glad we live in a society where our human rights are upheld by the European Court. Of course I am not for one minute trying to excuse what they did. I am just asking why they did it, and asking you if hanging them is really the answer. What would it achieve? Absolutely nothing.

And by the way, what is wrong with being a liberal?

17th Nov 2002, 15:46
Wedge - i read the Scottish Herald (broadsheet); though i fail to see it is any of your business.

I have no problem with liberals; it was YOU who were disparaging about those of that ilk in general in the first part of your initial post. Care to further disagree?

Also, i never said that social conditions were not a factor - however, some people like to pin that little easy out on youths when it suits. It can NEVER be the ultimate decider of people; you can only do that for yourself in life.

Are you seriously stating that because of their upbringing these two were not to blame, that the were merely moulded by their socialisation?? Utter claptrap. Run socialisation factors past your friendly police phycologist, see what they say.

All children, to at least some degree, know the difference of right and wrong. The degree these two monsters went to, is off the scale.

Some people become who they are in SPITE of their social class and background, NOT because of it. From the honest posty who came from the council estate to the pilot who once lived next door to him as a kid.

You ask me if hanging is really the answer?
Well, even the people who guarded then during detention are on record as unsure whether the are "reformed". They are back in society though, and would anyone here willingly live next door to them if they had a young family? Would you?

Some poor beggar unwittinglly has to....at great taxpayers expense.

And one thing sir, NEVER accuse me of taking the "easy way out"; i have never done so in my life. I have medals of valour to wear on my old service uniform to prove that to be so.

You, therefore, are in no place whatsoever to make that judgement of me, and by your patronising tone and placement of your profession, thankfully never shall.

Jet II
17th Nov 2002, 16:09

Oh please - psychopaths are NOT the result of "social deprivation"

Your attitude that being poor makes you more likely to be a criminal is very offensive to the majority of law abiding poor people around the world.

As for the punishment of people who commit the most horrendous crimes, I used to be in favour of Hanging but I am now wavering due to the amount of people who have been convicted of murder but now freed after many years due to them being innocent.

Only last week we had to let some poor bloke out after 25 years because he was set-up by the police (now after about 2M in compensation)

martinbakerfanclub, you say if the DNA evidence is there then execute - but what guarantees do we have that the police will not forge the results as thay have done with confessions?

17th Nov 2002, 17:31
Don't be too hard on Wedge.

At least he has had the courage to anounce he is into psychology.

One of Britain's expanding industry is councilling.

Never needed it when there was a more straight forward approach to the anti social.

17th Nov 2002, 17:48
Hope it's a large crowd at Cambridge crem (A14) at 03:00 hrs on 19/11/02 just to make sure she burns!!!!!

Chuck K
17th Nov 2002, 18:07
3 am!!
I assume your crematoriums don't normally work 27 hours a day. Is it located in a busy traffic area or something?
Just wondering who decided to make it more difficult for the public to attend if they want to? :confused:

17th Nov 2002, 19:37
bluskis - I take it from the tone of your answer that you believe psychology to be a waste of time. My interest in it extends to interest in illnesses of the mind, which we know very little about. Unfortunately until medical science does conquer the brain we will still have dark age attitudes towards 'mental' illness. My interest derives from my personal experience of it and that is why I like to look beyond saying whether a murderer is 'evil' or whether there are more complex reasons. The Sun are not prepared to look at those and they persuade their readers that they are irrelevant.

"Never needed it when there was a more straight forward approach to the anti social" - That line suggests that anyone who does require counselling are in some way guilty of anti-social behaviour. What about terrorism victims? I am not a big fan of counselling either I think it is over-rated. But if you had your way seemingly anyone who suffered from an illness of the brain - including mild clinical depression, would be stoned to death. Personally I like to believe that we have moved on from that as a society.

There is a generation gap in this, from my perspective anyone under the age of 35 generally has a far more modern view of psychological illness, including medical professionals.

Jet II - I did not say that psychopaths are the result of social deprivation. I was saying it was a major factor in the Bulger case. Maybe those two boys are 'evil', if you believe in such a thing. But I don't know and nor do any of you.

Martin - No need to get so defensive! I don't see how your medals of valour have anything to do with this!! Also my stated profession ex-wannabe in as far as that is as close I have come to an aviation related profession. I notice you do not list yours and again I fail to see the relevance. To say those two young men should hang is taking the easy way out whether you like it or not.

To those who object to or government having to implement the rulings of the European Court - well we have had to do so since we joined what was then the European Community back in the 1970s and unless we pull out of Europe altogther we will have to continue to do so. To my mind the political arguments for staying in and joining the Euro are far stronger than those against. Our justice system has benefitted a great deal from the European Court. (Expect incoming fire!!!) ;)

17th Nov 2002, 21:30

I thought it was clear that "anyone" encompasses all of the above.

Not really, you said anyone who celebrates in the death of a human being is a sad individual.

We're talking about Myra Hindley - and if ever there was a woman who could not possibly be described as a human being, she's the one.

17th Nov 2002, 22:16
Criminals like Hindley, Bradly and the recent child killers/abusers are psychopaths with very little chance of cure. Research proved that 80% of the abusers are recidivist. In view of the safety of our children we are obliged to take appropriate action to protect them from the evil. Why have them wear safety belts and at the same time expose them to the danger of child abusers?

The Bulger killers, how young they are, already show signs of a psychopat; complete lack of sense for the feelings of another human being.

These people have lost their right to exist in this life, period.


Boss Raptor
17th Nov 2002, 23:47
A quote from one of the victims relatives...

'She died quietly whilst her victims died screaming'...

Evil in life and in death...

18th Nov 2002, 10:41
Hindly did her deeds before I arrived on the planet, but from what I understand I think she should have never been let out of jail.


Are you for real, or are you just winding everyone up ?


Doors to Automatic
18th Nov 2002, 10:47
It never ceases to amaze me how, in cases such as this one, there are always an army of liberal do-gooders just waiting to spring to the defence of the criminal in question.

In my opinion these people are more dangerous than the criminals themselves and we as the law-abiding society should be doing everything to shout them down at every possible opportunity until they are well and truly defeated.

Whilst very vocal in their support of scum like Hindley they deafen us with their silence when it comes to defending the human rights of people like Winnie Johnson who have endured decades of suffering through no fault of their own.

It is rare these days to find any instances where justice prevails but the death of Hindley before the liberal lunatics managed to get her freed was good to see. The thought of scores of criminal-loving do-gooders crying into their Guardians on Saturday morning was a particularly gratifying one.

18th Nov 2002, 12:40
A voice of reason
Doors to automatic , I am sure you speak for the silent majority.

18th Nov 2002, 12:56
A sane mind in a mad world. Well said.


Tricky Woo
18th Nov 2002, 13:54
I suggest that the the time is ripe for a moment of leniency on our part: shove her corpse in front of the parole board, so the bitch can get her application turned down one last time. Full review of the board's decision in, say, 500 years.

Fcuk her. Fcuk him. Fcuk Lord Young and his bleeding heart.


18th Nov 2002, 15:22
anybody who celebrates in the death of a human being is a very sad individual

It is easy for the P.C. brigade to defend unpopular causes, the P.C. brigade always resort to insults as soon as they see anything they don't agree with. If you disagree with them then you are hailed from the rooftops as "rapist" "sexist" "fascist" "homophobic" etc. I am personally a little tired of this Stalinist approach to stiffling all opinions except the "correct" one.

In response to this quote I want to state that I am a sad individual.

I am sad that I have no belief in the afterlife and so I know that she will not spend all eternity in hell.

I am sad that the gene strains which produced this woman and her boyfriend ever crawled out from the primordial soup

I am sad that I never got a chance to meet my cousin. He went out one day to the cinema and didn't come home. What was left of him was found a few years later in a small hole in the damp peat of Saddleworth Moor.

The most interesting part of this thread for me was the comments by Big G. To hear comments from someone who met this truly sad and pathetic individual.

I am going to quit whilst I am ahead, before I offend anyone else by having part of my familiy so inconveniently murdered.

18th Nov 2002, 17:09
Doors to Automatic (and some of the rest of you, who I think are getting confused) - Wedge and Big G aren't "defending" Myra Hindley - at least, that's not how I understand it. There is no question of any defence, no-one contributing to this thread believes that what she did was anything other than horrific.

What they are doing is expressing the fact that they are not comfortable with a system where it appears that "trial by tabloid" takes over and successive home secretaries are too cowed by the anticipated media response to exercise their judgment properly. That is a legitimate cause for concern and should not be (deliberately?) trivialised and misunderstood as "sympathy" for Hindley.

As Flying Lawyer points out, the system is about to change; I think it can only be for the better, as I think it is impossible for a politician to address these questions with a clear head, unclouded by the thought of votes lost.

I don't really want to get into the Bulger debate, except to say that I don't think a comparison of the cases is helpful. Hindley was a grown woman. Thompson and Venables were children; children around the same age as poor Holly and Jessica.

18th Nov 2002, 17:35

The home secretaries are cowered by the European court and the politically correct.

Perhaps they SHOULD also be cowered by the media, who in some instances seem to reflect the opinion of the people who elected the home secretary and his collegues on both sides of the house.

Wedge, who I don't want to make the scapegoat of the guardian reader brigade, said the Bulger two were nearly below the age of consent, or some such statement. Its a pity their victim was not just nearly murdered.

Hindley's victims were children, as was their victim.

I think a little reevaluation of your post is in order.

Edited to add the following after reading the evening paper.

Apparently it is I who have to reflect.

Hindley was apparently an outstanding human being.

If you doubt, read the London Evening news, wherein Andrew McCooey who knows her well as her solicitor, says so.

She must have sown a lot of mail bags to be able afford such exhaulted legal advice, or is the British tax payer still paying leaches after all this time?.

18th Nov 2002, 18:36
I prefer politics to be dominated by well thought out and reasoned debate, not by lynch-mob style demagoguery.

Doors to Automatic said:

"be doing everything to shout them down at every possible opportunity until they are well and truly defeated." Well quite, and that's just the tactic the Nazi party used to bring Hitler to power.

And before anyone accuses me of insulting anyone I am not calling anyone here a fascist. I am just asking for my democratic right to express my opinion, and I don't recall calling anyone a "rapist" "sexist" "fascist" or "homophobic" on this thread. If Doors to Automatic had his way he would be using his stated tactics to get his message across.

To set the record straight:

1: I am a liberal (in the true sense that I believe in freedom of speech and the rights of the individual (actually quite a right wing ethos)

2: I do read The Guardian as well as The Times, The Telegraph and Daily Mail and The Sun. I don't always agree with the Guardian but I agree with it more often than I agree with the Daily Mail.

3: I am not for one moment trying to defend Hindley or the Bulger killers. I am trying to put another view to the 'string 'em up' argument. It was obvious I would be accused of defending her simply by not following that line. Well that is bull5hit. I do not mourn Hindley's passing for one moment - she committed some appalling crimes and deserved to suffer the consequences as I said in my first post. I was objecting to the trial by media which led to her serving 11 years longer than the judge had originally recommended at sentencing. That is a legal argument and nothing to do with Hindley or her crimes. Could somebody please quote me directly from any of my previous posts if they believe I was saying anything else before.

4: Gusty, I can assure you I am not trying to wind anybody up.

5: I am not a bleeding heart or a member of the PC brigade. My politics are firmly centre, neither left nor right.

Octopussy - Well said that is exactly the point I was making - unfortunately most on this thread don't seem to understand that.

Bluskis - Read the posts more carefully, I never mentioned the 'age of consent'. I was citing the age of criminal responsibility which is 10 in this country. If they had been just a few months younger they could not by law have been charged with any offence. Do not forget that or the fact that if they had done this in most European countries they could not have been charged. I hope I have made this point clear enough for you to understand this time.

Octopussy correctly points out that they were the same age as Holly and Jessica. I was not saying that they did what they did only because of their background, but if they were posh rich prep school kids would they have done it? Of course not. I blame the breakdown in moral standards in our society (for which Thatcher must take a large proportion of the blame, as well as the lefties) as much as I blame those two who were only 10 years old and in my opinion had absolutely no conception of how wrong what they were doing was.

Hope this post doesn't get deleted which is what would happen if DoorstoAutomatic had his way - he would censor any view which did not agree with his. Sounds rather like that chap in Iraq to me.

18th Nov 2002, 19:34
"... absolutely no conception of how wrong what they were doing was ..."

Wedge, do you remember being 10 years old yourself ????

[takes Wedge to one side to explain patiently ...] In an argument, there are always two sides. Comparing those whose opinions differ from yours to H..... and the N...s is generally regarded as (a) intellectually bankrupt (b) the lowest form of bad taste and (c) admission of defeat.

You would be well advised once again to contemplate the use of the "edit" button....

18th Nov 2002, 19:43
Let me see if I have got this right.
There are people in this forum who are advocating the hanging of two 10 year old boys?


18th Nov 2002, 19:59
28th, you are, unfortunately, correct that is exactly what some people on this forum are advocating.

Grainger, your reply is completely incomprehenisble. Suggest you use the edit button. I have no intention of doing so.

tony draper
18th Nov 2002, 20:30
We are not savages here, we would have given them a Valium before we hung them of course.

18th Nov 2002, 21:36
Y'know, one thing that strikes me as I peruse the tabloid hysteria is - well actually it's two things.

One is the way in which the vocabulary of hatred has been so rapidly exhausted. Evil Myra, Monster, all the rest. Where are the literate journos in our hour of need?

The other is how many of our fellow citizens in one of the most secular societies on earth suddenly disinter their religious beliefs to express their hope that MH rots in hell, or alternatively burns there, or whatever. We know that there are no atheists in foxholes. There aren't many in a lynch mob either are there?

18th Nov 2002, 21:49
I don't know what you find incomprehensible about Grainger's reply.
Firstly, he thinks your assertion that the boys who killed Jamie Bulger had "... absolutely no conception of how wrong what they were doing was ..." is absurd and invites you to reconsider your assertion by reflecting upon what you were like at their age.
For my part, whilst I agree there is a difference between the conception of an adult and a child, I think your assertion goes too far.
Secondly, as there are always to sides in an argument, and resorting to comparing people who disagree with you to Hitler and the Nazis suggests (a) a lack of intellectual skill, (b) is in very bad taste and (c) suggests you've run out of counter-arguments.
I think he was a little taken aback, and offended, to be compared with a Nazi since he's never suggested you don't an absolute right to express your views. Don't you find people tend to react badly if you compare them with Nazis?

Hope that helps.


Best we don't go there U-R!
Another way of looking at it is that people with Christian beliefs inter their beliefs temporarily on such occasions. Forgiveness? In fairness, being a Christian does not = being a Saint, and there are some times when it's not easy to adhere to that commandment. ;)

18th Nov 2002, 21:59
FFS......can you read my post AGAIN then if that's what you think I was saying. In fact I will quote directly from it:

"And before anyone accuses me of insulting anyone I am not calling anyone here a fascist."

That was preceded by: "[we should] be doing everything to shout them down at every possible opportunity until they are well and truly defeated." Well quite, and that's just the tactic the Nazi party used to bring Hitler to power". Which is quite true. I was objecting to the fact that DoorstoAutomatic was saying that his political opponents should be shouted down at every possible opportunity until defeated. Which was a tactic used by Hitler, I was merely pointing out that to do that is undemocratic. Maybe I could have chosen a more tactful example. I was NOT comparing anyone here to Hitler. I was pointing out that I have a right to voice an opinion without being shouted down even though others may disagree with it.

Grainger "Comparing those whose opinions differ from yours to H..... and the N...s is generally regarded as (a) intellectually bankrupt (b) the lowest form of bad taste and (c) admission of defeat". I was doing nothing of the sort as I have explained above. I am well aware there are two sides to the argument and all I was asking was that it be heard without being shouted down (although I am not the kind of PC brigade do-gooder that DoorsToAutomatic was referring to). Maybe you need to be taken to one side and have that explained patiently to you.

For the umpteenth time on this thread I have misquoted or people have jumped to conclusions about what I was saying. Please read the whole post before you respond.

Nondeplume - Maybe my assertion that they had no idea what they were doing goes too far. However the point I was trying to make (again) was that in the eyes of the law they were only just old enough to be considered to have any conception of what they were doing. If they had done it a few months earlier they would in the eyes of the law had no conception, but because they were 10 instead of being charged with nothing they were charged with murder. Worth thinking about isn't it? And that was my point - While what they did was disgusting, it is equally disgusting for some people on this thread to suggest that 10 year olds should hang. This is supposed to be a civilised society. You would not think so from some of the sentiments expressed here. I'd much rather live here with the protection for Human Rights from the European Court than in Saudi Arabia, Iraq or China. Would any of you pro-hanging lobby care to live in one of those countries?? No, thought not.

18th Nov 2002, 23:00
Actually U-R, I was hoping Hindley died like Jeffrey Dahmer with a broomstick up her @#s, but you'ld rather see her tickled to death?

Literature and Hindley just doesn't seem to match in my humble opinion.

Guess you prefer to have the history of the holocaust written in the form of a sonnet....



18th Nov 2002, 23:12
Sorry Captain K, I fear you have missed my point. There have been hundreds of brilliant journalists over the years who could have encapsulated all of the threads of MH's appalling life and deeds, and left us with greater understanding, and prompted us to deeper thought. Just imagine what the great writers would have said. The illiterate and inflammatory pap served up by our press today is aimed at the mob and the mob alone. There is nothing new in that, but it is depressing and demeans our language and our country.

And my thoughts on the religious angle stand. Heathens atheists and pagans have the cheek to appropriate Christian imagery to revile probably the easiest target in the history of hypocrisy.

18th Nov 2002, 23:24
Spot on U_R. Agree entirely about the press which was my point when I first ill-advisedly got involved in this thread. Since then I have had to consistently deny being a PC do-gooder for suggesting that we should respect the recommendation of the judge at the sentencing and not allow the press to decide the length of sentence. It would have made little difference to me whether she died in prison or had been let out to live out the last sad couple of years of her pathetic existence.

It seems that anyone who doesn't advocate the 'string 'em up' line is a wet weedy do-gooder. Well that demeans this entire thread.

18th Nov 2002, 23:43
You suggested I should read your posts more carefully, may I respectfully suggest you do likewise.

To move on,and accepting you are not that far away from the feelings of most of the posters, a question. How do you justify your comment that the press decides sentence.

As you say the judge recommends.

The Home sec. has an input, the press often publically expresses the opinion of the electorate at least in the same proportion as the proportion upon which the home sec was elected, and the home sec often takes decisions which are not in line with press opinion.

Hopefully the home sec has taken note of the opinions expressed in the press, but certainly does not always appear to be overwhelmingly influenced by them.

You want it when?
19th Nov 2002, 00:05
The clocks have just chimed midnight, I'm up in five and a half hours. There is a bottle of milk warming for the six week old short person and I can hear the four year old snoring gently upstairs.

Child murders - to quote a PC Game character "I'll rip you head off and sh*t down your throat". Nuff said. Be they dead like Myra Hindly or alive the Bulger killers.

19th Nov 2002, 09:15
I certainly don't want to be misunderstood in my views following my earlier posting and so, in case anyone has taken my comments at anything other than face value I will qualify them.

P.C. Brigade
...the idea of trying to change the views, words and actions of society by encouraging them to reconsider for a moment the real meaning and impact of what they are saying or doing has produced many admirable changes in our society, changes far more fundamental and longlasting than anything I will ever achieve. That is something I salute and would defend to the hilt.

However...."Politically Correct" is by definition, a form of oppression as it refuses to accept that there are any other views than the one being expounded as correct. This is why I referred to the P.C. Brigade as Stalinist in their behaviour. The social free thinkers I mentioned are greater people than I will ever be, the latter case are lacking in original thought. It is up to the reader to decide which camp they fall into, from my viewpoint I hope that no-one here can identify themselves in the latter camp.

.....in spite of my minor vested interest in this case, I do not accept capital punishment as a valid punishment. This is not for any reason of distaste, I can name you a dozen people who, in my darkest thoughts deserve a miserable and cruel ending however there are many innocent people such as Colin Wallace who would have been hung as an expedience had the powers that be had their way. I will not accept this in my name.

Child Killers and Killers of Children.
Hindley and Brady knew what they were doing, the Bulger killers knew what they were doing was wrong. There is, in y humble little world, a difference between these two points. The death of James Bulger was a terrible thing but should an adult be punished for asctions caried out as a child? I don't know, I can't offer an answer on that one.

Doors to Automatic
19th Nov 2002, 10:12
Another tactic of the liberal PC brigade like Wedge (who incidentally are the masters at shouting people down) is to automatically call anyone who doesn't share their warped criminal-friendly views a "fascist".

What I am suggesting is that the silent majority who have to endure the constant barrage of self opinionated PC nonsense stick up for themselves a bit more.

If wanting a society that puts the victim well and truly in front of the criminal makes me a "fascist" then fair enough - I can live with that.

I know myself that I am not and that unlike the Guardian reading types, my sympathies are with the victims of these horrific crimes and not with the likes of Hindley.

19th Nov 2002, 10:47
DTA - I have already said TWICE that I was not calling you a fascist. I can see your point but I was taking issue that your political opponents should be shouted down until defeated. I was pointing out that that is not a democratic tactic.

Secondly, just because I may not agree with you does not mean that I am a member of the PC brigade. I am not and I have already said that, but you either did not read it or decided to ignore it. I don't know why I have to say this again but for the third time I am not defending any child killer. No one has responded to my above point that the Bulger killers were only old enough to be considered to have any conception of what they were doing. In most European countries they would be considered legally to have no conception.

My sympathies are also with the victims of the crimes.

bluskis - The Sun themselves quoted one of the Hindley supporters on Saturday who said "If it were not for the Sun she would have been released years ago". In other words taking pride in what they saw as their victory. You said earlier that the press should be able to influence our justice system in this way. I disagree. By definition it is not justice. The Home Secretaries were not prepared to release her because of the clamour from the tabloid press and the resulting loss of popularity.

19th Nov 2002, 11:06
Wedge, judging by Doors to Automatic's last post, he either hasn't understood (poor lad), hasn't read (a tad slapdash in a debate like this) or had deliberately ignored (tut) your last couple of posts. Whichever of those is true, I'd say it's time to stop wasting your energies on him.

Doors to - a quick tip: in any debate, in order to be taken seriously, you have to address the points made by others, rather than just ignoring them and repeating the same old point.

Sorry if I sound harsh, I may have got out of bed the wrong side today...

19th Nov 2002, 11:18
Whether or not MH would/should have been released subject to a ruling by a European court may all be a bit academic as the police have just announced that they and the Director of Public Prosecutions were considering charging her with two more murders, ones that she had admitted to in the 1980's but not yet stood trial for, so she may well have had two more life sentences still to serve.

Doors to Automatic
19th Nov 2002, 11:37
Wedge, Octopussy (especially Octopussy)

Whilst we are on the subject of reading posts properly may I respectfully suggest that you go back and read my original post again.

I was not suggesting that anyone who doesn't share my views is shouted down.

What I was suggesting is that people stand up more to people (the PC brigade in this case) who themselves are forcing their minority opinions on us in an un-democratic way.

Unfortunately their way is exactly what you put forward as "fascism" (in other words shout down anyone who doesn't agree with you) and as a result we have a country where crime is rife but where the system is far more interested in the criminal than the victim.

They are in the minority (if you don't believe me go and ask 100 people in the street what they think about the justice system in the UK) and yet their way rules.

What I suggested in my original post is that the silent majority becomes just as vocal as the liberal minority and restors some sort of common sense.

i.e. Majority opinion rules - now how is that undemocratic?

19th Nov 2002, 12:12
No, you missed my point. Now listen!!!

No, read my post agian!!!!

Fcuk you!! Read MY post again!!!

No, no, YOU missed MY point!!! Now listen!!!!!!!!




PC!!!! (repeated 15 times)


There are good points made on both sides here. All your transmitters are clearly working. It seems to be the receivers that are faulty. I suggest you all do a few checks on them.

19th Nov 2002, 13:02
Bins is right: we've had a lot of extreme points of view put forward and little real debate. I suspect that most of us actually hold rather more moderate views but have expressed them in an extreme way.

My own position is simple: I believe in the punishment to fit the crime. I do not, however, hold with the Death Penalty - although for reasons different to those usually given - leaving incerceration as the practical alternative.

Punishment to fit the crime. Twenty-five year's loss of freedom does not in my book compensate for the loss of a whole life. No matter the changes in the person, no amount of remorse will bring the victims back, and MH did not even have the decency to end the suffering of the families by revealing the location of the bodies. The victims and their families do not get another chance or a reprieve after 25 years. Why should the perpetrator ?.

People should be held accountable for their own actions. Most of us are hardworking, law-abiding citizens who do know right from wrong from a very early age. By blaming society for the actions of the Bulger killers it feels as though we are being held partly responsible for these crimes. No wonder people are upset and angry.

Forget the insults and the extreme points of view. My more moderate proposition is that - whilst the system undoubtedly needs checks and balances - the emphasis is now loaded too far towards sympathy and understanding for the perpetrators and away from concern and support for the victims and their families.

It's time the pendulum swung the other way. If it's democracy you're after I'd suggest that a poll of the general public would support this point of view.

19th Nov 2002, 13:47
Thanks Grainger. You are a good example of somebody who can have definite views yet still leave the forum open to debate. As discussed on another thread, I tend towards an opposing view to you on the death penalty, but I agree with you and others that the rights of the perpetrator seem to be taking an unholy preference over the rights of the victim.

This doesn't, however, mean I agree with your suggestion that the beliefs of the majority should form the basis of our value system in a democracy. The term "democracy" is one of the most overused and misused words in our language. If our society is going to be based on the uneducated values of the tabloid readers, albeit they are the majority, it's not a society I want to be part of. In this situation, education is reduced to a scorned rump, and the sneering slogan "those that can, do, those that can't, teach" becomes a convenient hook for the unthinking to hang all their prejudices on. More so given that most of those will earn lots of money and automatically assume their opinion is more valuable because of it.

A shame really.

Umm, have I got off the track here? :confused:

19th Nov 2002, 15:04
I think Grainger and Binoculars have covered things quite nicely here. There are no absolute wrongs and rights, just opinions. :-)

19th Nov 2002, 15:57
I think that the issue of her facing further charges is a red herring. No such charges could have got past the Human Rights Act, or, failing that, the ECHR.

How could anyone argue that she could have had a fair trial? Where would you find a jury?

That one is just a bit of speculation that should not delay us long.

19th Nov 2002, 17:35
Due to the socialist, liberal spirit of time sprung from the 60's, grown in the 70's and perfectioned in the 80's, there are serious problems we have to deal with now, being it raising our kids and education, or being it the out of every scale care and after-care for criminals or road offenders, whereby the victims and victims relatives often are completely forgotten. These people suffer the consequences of the unwanted crimes forced upon them by other individuals who have to pay 1st for the crime they comitted and 2nd for the grief they cause to the victims and their relatives.

My opinion re Hindley is probably biased because I have 2 young daughters and God knows what I'm up to when something happen to them equally to the victims of these child abusers. But it's only human to desire justice will be done.

The classical question for Wedge (and likeminded) is, what would YOU do if your kid was Hindley's victim?


19th Nov 2002, 18:54
I think Bins has got it right too. I don't think the opinions differ that much. We all agree that this woman carried out apalling crimes and that she deserved a fitting punishment. We may have different views on exactly what does 'fit' in this case.

Grainger, I agree entirely with your last post. I agree that the system is weighted against the victim and needs reform. I also do not however agree with the death penalty.

KAOS - I have never disagreed with you before and I don't think I do here either. Although I don't have two daughters, if my child was Hindley's victim I would want to inflict on her a most savage and painful death with my own hands. Maybe therefore I would not be the best person judge the fitting punishment under those circumstances, since I would be convicted of murder for doing it.

Bins - "If our society is going to be based on the uneducated values of the tabloid readers, albeit they are the majority, it's not a society I want to be part of." Well said. My sentiments entirely and the point I was trying to make on this thread initially. Maybe I didn't make it too well and as a result I was accused of being a bleeding heart do-gooder PC lefty. Which I am not. It may be snobbish but sometimes the uneducated do not know what is best for our society, but The Sun claim that because they have the support of the masses they must be morally right. They have used every pseudo-religious epithet to describe Hindley -ie 'Evil' - when really none of us know whether she was or indeed what 'evil' means. She carried out apalling murders of children. That's all that matters. Whether she was 'evil' or not is irrelevant, but by using that word to describe her they do introduce a medieval 'supernatural' element. Which is unhelpful because it encourages lynch-mob style 'justice'.

19th Nov 2002, 23:47
As she had already admitted the murders why would you want a jury? OK, so she admits to the killings and then pleads 'Not Guilty', where the jury comes from is really not so important, what would be the defence? She is on record as having admitted her guilt.

Are you saying that the HR act or the ECHR would protect a confessed murderer? Plenty of people been convicted in the UK for crimes committed years ago, some with no body being found either, no protection for them from Europe or any Act.

Would be interested to hear how her being charged and convicted could have been stopped by such Acts and/or the ECHR.

Doors to Automatic
21st Nov 2002, 17:39
The HR Act is nothing more than a charter for criminals - I have yet to see it applied to anything else!:mad: :mad: :mad:

Celtic Emerald
21st Nov 2002, 19:26
Myra Hindley paid the price for the double whammy of being both a child killer but even worse a female child killer. For a woman to kill a child goes against what society sees as against the natual law of female nurturing, motherhood & protecting the young so this makes the culprit even more reviled, satanised & culpable.

Hindleys crime was not only to aid in the pleasure she took in the killing of these innocent defenceless children & her callousness in face of their fear notably when little Leslie Ann Downes was taped begging for her life for their entertainment Hindley was recorded harshly & unsympathetically reproaching the child.

While Hindley may never have killed had she not met Brady she wasn't the misled young girl who was so infatuated she couldn't stand up to Brady that we often were led to believe, she was instrumental in trapping the unwary youngsters into the car for Brady to get his evil way with. They trusted easily again because she was a woman, whatever about kids being told not to trusting men woman were a different matter, the same ruse was used in the West murders by that eh b*tch Rosemary West :mad:

Hildley did not have a deprived background, she was doted on by her grandmother with whom she lived for a long time, she took complete pleasure in the sadistic murder & torture of those sweet children, she was known to be a manipulative cow till the end, I take who conversion to Christianity with a grain of salt & as for the do gooders who took up their case I could think of a million more cases of people locked in prison who would have been more deserving of their time & help.

If she didn't want to spend her life in prison then the silly evil cow shouldn't have helped kill those children in the first place. She made her bed & she had to lie on it & I hope it was a bl**dy hard one. Tough sh*t, there's no crocodile tears gonna be shed in these quarters :mad:


Doors to Automatic
22nd Nov 2002, 15:12
Celtic Emerald wrote

"I could think of a million more cases of people locked in prison who would have been more deserving of their time & help"

I can think of at least one - farmer Tony Martin

22nd Nov 2002, 16:12

Have you actually read up on the Martin case?


Fred Barras was a 16 year old petty thief. "He had been convicted no fewer than 29 times and was on bail following his last arrest, just two days before his death."

He burgled a house, and was shot to death for it, with an "illegal pump action shotgun". Tony Martin was tried and convicted for murder.

Burglary has not carried a death sentence in this country for about 150 years.

"Tony Martin is no hero. He courted his personal disaster by demonstrating his contempt for the law and proclaiming, long before the event, his 'right' to use extreme force to protect his property."

These quotes are not from the Guardian, they're from the Police Federation Magazine.


"Tony Martin's conviction for murder is reduced by the Appeal Court to manslaughter and his life sentence cut to five years. The judges reject his claim that he was acting in self defence when he shot dead 16-year-old Fred Barras. But they accepted he was suffering from a personality disorder, which diminished his responsibility. "

So this martyr USED the system to get off a murder sentence by claiming he had a "personality disorder".


"Martin is due to be freed on licence next summer, having served two thirds of a five year term for manslaughter, imposed by the Court of Appeal"


According to the original judge: " I believe the burglars did not know Martin was there until the very last moment. They were given no chance to escape, and Martin was not acting in reasonable self-defence. He fired intending really serious injury and certainly risked the lives of each of the burglars"

The police will be providing Martin with a 24 hour protection service. Fred Barras' family and friends are allegedly out for revenge.

Why is it ok for this man to be:
1. Released
2. Protected

As you say, "we have a country where crime is rife but where the system is far more interested in the criminal than the victim".

Please explain to me how Tony Martin is more of a victim than Fred Barras.

22nd Nov 2002, 16:37
Dodgy Logic


Martin was at home minding his own business.

Barras was out intending to make a victim of someone.

Unless you have a notice on your gate saying 'Burglars welcome', they should assume they are not welcome!!!!

22nd Nov 2002, 17:02
Fred Barras was a 16 year old petty thief. "He had been convicted no fewer than 29 times and was on bail following his last arrest, just two days before his death." Here's the real flaw in the system. If Barras had been locked up where he should have been then he wouldn't have got shot.

Flying Lawyer
22nd Nov 2002, 17:10
dodgy asks Why is it ok for this man to be:
1. Released
2. Protected

1. Because he will have served his sentence. The answer is in one of the quotes you've posted. "Martin is due to be freed on licence next summer, having served two thirds of a five year term for manslaughter, imposed by the Court of Appeal."
All prisoners sentenced to a term of four years or more are released on licence after they've served two-thirds of their sentence unless they have lost some remission for misbehaving in prison.
Why should he serve longer than everyone else sentenced to five years?

2. What an extraordinary question. According to the Guardian article from which you quote, Police know there's a £60,000 contract on his head. If the Police have grounds to believe that there is a real danger someone will be murdered, protection is provided. It is not done lightly.
If there is a real danger, do you say the Police should just ignore it and allow him be murdered?

22nd Nov 2002, 17:12
Not that simple.

Martin was at home with an illegally held shotgun.
The shotgun was illegally held because the police considered him unfit to hold a firearms certificate. They thought he was a loony.
He expected to be burgled. He damn near WANTED to be burgled.

He had blacked the house out so it looked empty.

He had removed steps from the stairs so that anyone climbing them would end up with their leg trapped in the dark.

He emptied a full shotgun from the top of the stairs into an unknown target without warning.

He turned round and went back to bed.
If Barras had been just a few months younger, Martin would have been a child killer.

Suppose that instead of a sixteen year old burglar on the stairs, it had been a twentysix year old policeman, checking on an oddball local who hasn't been seen for a while, and whose house was dark?
Or a couple of ten year old girls from the next farm, exploring the loony's house for a dare?
Or Jehovah's Witnesses (OK bad choice)

Would it still be OK? Would they all have been "asking for it"?

You are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself and your home.

Shooting people to death without warning is generally considered unreasonable.

He could have challenged the intruders. He did not.
He could have warned the intruders. He did not.
He could have opened a window and fired into the air. He did not.
He could have fired into the ceiling/floor/wall. He did not.

Any or all of these would have changed the course of his and Barras's life.

He shot the kid in the dark in the back from close range without warning and he did it again and again. Then he left him to bleed to death in the dark.

Very uncomfortable with summary justice. Martin charged, tried, convicted and botched the execution of someone little more than a child in ten seconds.

Barras should not have been there that night. He should have been in care, in Borstal or young offenders centre, in prison, in a police station, tagged and curfewed at his mum's, whatever.
He was almost certainly only going one way in life, but he did not deserve to die for being a small-time crook.

Jet II
22nd Nov 2002, 17:31

He expected to be burgled. He damn near WANTED to be burgled

I am sure that he did not WANT to be burgled - however he probably EXPECTED to be burgled as at that particular time the no's of police had been cut back in his particular rural area and there was a massive increase in crime in the isolated rural villages. Also there had been previous attempts to rob him on his farm.

This explains why he turned his home into a fortress - OK he probably wasn't all there, but when people are effectively abandoned by the forces of law and order then they will take the law into their own hands.

It is all very well for you to sit in your nice comfortable home and criticise, but I wonder what YOU would do in the same situation ie. alone in a deserted house that you know is going to get no protection from the police and then some young thugs start to break-in.....

22nd Nov 2002, 17:38
The little rat boy deserved to be shot !!!

He should not have gone round nicking other peoples stuff and expect 2 get away with it.

Looks like all that fair ground practice paid off for Martin..........Good shooting !!!

22nd Nov 2002, 17:45
There was a jingle in my childhood:

Paddy on the railway
Picking up stones
Along came the engine
And broke Paddy's bones.
Hey! said Paddy
That's not fair!
Well, said the driver,
You shouldn't have been there.

When the debate is all over, the truth remains that people who go looking for trouble often find it.

22nd Nov 2002, 18:37
A triumph for British justice. Martin deserves to be right where he is. In America you have the right to bear arms and defend your property with them. Thankfully we have more sane laws here.

I don't go round shooting people, even if they do tread on my property. That's what we pay the Police for. Something of a double standard that all you conservatives aren't arguing that he should be hanged. He took someone's life after all!!

It's especially satisfying to think of all the right-wingers crying into their Daily Mails over this moron.

22nd Nov 2002, 18:47
“That's what we pay the Police for.”

Do they do it?

22nd Nov 2002, 20:22
What Martin did was undoubtedly wrong.

But having suffered intimidation and robbery repeatedly, he was at the end of his tether.

The police were either incapable or unwilling to protect Mr Martin from these thugs, so he had little resort other than to take matters into his own hands. Yes, he over-reacted, but under extreme provocation, and this was taken into account in determining his sentence, which he has now served.

The real tragic irony in all this is that a young man has lost his life precisely because of the liberal values that allowed him to go free to offend over and over again. Eventually this placed him in terrible danger. Sometimes good intentions can have unexpected consequences; in this case they got someone killed.

Martin has his share of the blame in all this. But so do the police, the courts and the social services - all of whom failed to prevent this tragedy from happening.

22nd Nov 2002, 20:25
Why do you describe Tony Martin with such venom?
Mr Martin lived alone, had been burgled several times, and lived in fear of it happening again. He'd never been in trouble in his life, never assaulted anyone, never stolen.
Because he lived a curious lifestyle, almost a recluse, it was rumoured that he was very wealthy and had lots of valuables and cash in his ramshackle house. The (false) rumours had obviously spread through the criminal world because the three burglars travelled from as far away as the Midlands to Norfolk specifically to burgle his house. In fact, anything of value had been stolen by previous burglars. But he knew of the rumours, and knew that he was constantly at risk.
His lived in constant fear which grew to such an extent that it became an obsession. He turned his house into a virtual fortress and slept with his boots on suspecting (correctly) that burglars would probably come at night. He applied for a shotgun licence but his application was turned down because the police thought (correctly) that he was unstable. He knew there were no neighbours within shouting distance, knew that the police were too far away to help, knew that police cover in that rural area was non-existent. He knew if intruders came, he was on his own so he bought one anyway to protect himself.
But he wasn't a criminal, a thug, he was just a man driven to distraction by his fear. He became what you describe as a 'loony'. The psychiatrists' description was that he was suffering from a 'personality disorder'. The jury decided he went too far, convicted him, and he was sent to jail so he's being punished.
Why the venom?

You've suggested all sorts of things which might have happened if someone other than burglars crept into his house during the night.
But what might have happened if he didn't have a gun?
Perhaps you think the three burglars, all very experienced criminals and all with convictions for violence, would just have said 'OK, sorry to have disturbed you' if he'd told them there was no money hidden in the house?

BTW, I'd be very interested to know your answers to the questions FL asked you?
1. Why shouldn't he be released on parole after the normal time served by prisoners who get five years?
2. Don't you think he should be protected if the police know there is a plan to murder him after his release?

I'm very surprised that you. of all contributors, describe Tony Martin as a 'moron'. I thought from your earlier posts you were rather more understanding of mental disorder. Weren't you rather critical of people who lacked understanding of such things? The psychiatric diagnosis was that Tony Martin was suffering from a personality disorder, a recognised medical condition.
I'm not surprised that Dodgy repeatedly referred to Mr Martin as a 'loony', but I expected better of you.

22nd Nov 2002, 20:41
Capt Kaos

While I completely understand where you're coming from in wanting to protect your family, surely the whole point of a criminal justice system is that it doesn't act purely from emotion- it stands back from it.

If we're going to say, "imagine how you'd feel if it were your you/your kids", then we might as well have regular town lynchings.

Only then people would complain that their kid was lynched without reason, they'd say "imagine if it were your kid"....

got to be objective about this, however hard it is with the likes of Brady & Hindley.

22nd Nov 2002, 21:14
Someone comes into my space uninvited in the middle of the nite, they are liable to be seriously hurt in the panic they set off in me.

Anyone noticed the predictable increase in London street gun battles, worthy of the crummiest American black & white B movies, since the knowall's and care nothings in Westminster decided British Olympic shooters were too dangerous to be allowed to have guns.

I am absoulutely staggered that some of the current threadsters support the thugs and criminals.

Of course if one of them happens to be a parent of the deceased burgular, then I can more easily understand the posting, but I still cannot agree with them.

tony draper
22nd Nov 2002, 21:16
I'm just pleased Martin took that piece of filth out of the Genepool before he had a chance to breed.

22nd Nov 2002, 21:22
I think it was Lord Normand, late of the Court of Session, who said: "If ye hang a thief when he's young, he'll no' steal when he's auld".

22nd Nov 2002, 21:26
Just noticed that Wedge and Dodgy Logic use similar logic.

Dodgy says if Barras ha been a few months younger he would have been a child.

Wedge said a similar think about Bulger killers.

Sorry judge, I nearly didn't do it.

Is there a movement here?

Are they trying to say we should hold 14 year olds on up responsible for their grown up crimes like murder, torture and burgulary ?

Next thing we will have those with alternative lifestyles demanding 14 as the age of consent.

22nd Nov 2002, 21:59
Don't know why you mentioned me bluskis - I never said anything about 14 year olds. I was earlier making an entirely different point about the age of criminal responsibility. Think you are the one with the Dodgy Logic mate.

I don't know what you mean about alternative lifestyles either, are you suggesting I lead one!!!!! :D Unfortunately for you it is your views which are becoming the alternative.

While we are talking about age limits, I think that the age of criminal responsibility should probably be raised to 12 to bring it in line with other European countries (and if it were 12 before then the Bulger killers could not have been charged). There is also a strong argument to lower the age of consent to 14, 16 is just unrealistic in this age. 14-15 year olds doing it anyway regardless of the law.

btw, when describing Martin as a 'moron' I was not referring to his illness, I didn't know he had been diagnosed with a personality disorder.

23rd Nov 2002, 06:07
Regarding Tony Martin it's a shame he didn't finish off the other pikey [email protected] with his illegal shotgun.

The pikey along with Barras who were 2 well known thieves,then has the cheek to sue for compensation.

Once again due to political correctness and leftie do-gooders these 2 scum balls should have been in prison/borstal ages ago.As they're gypies the authorities are scared and unwilling to deal with them in the correct and normal manner.

Doors to Automatic
25th Nov 2002, 10:02
The only thing Tony Martin should have been given is a more accurate gun! :mad:

25th Nov 2002, 11:02
"Fred Barras was a 16 year old petty thief. "He had been convicted no fewer than 29 times and was on bail following his last arrest, just two days before his death."

This is exactly the reason why citizins take the law in their own hand. They get fed up with the law letting these vermin out on the street again instead sending them to an education camp for at least 6 or 12 months under the wings of some drilling sergeant-majors to learn some discipline.

Finally in our country the opinions of the politicians and law enforcers finally came to the conclusion that something has to be done instead of releasing them every time and have the community deal with the problems. Time the powers to be take the responsability they owe to the community.



Doors to Automatic
25th Nov 2002, 15:13
That would be too much like common sense, Kaos.

And common sense is something which doesn't feature too strongly amongst our politicians, judges and police. It's far more important to uphold the rights of the criminals than it is to worry about the victims of their crimes.

And anyone who disagrees with that is immediately branded a "fascist" (!!?!)

25th Nov 2002, 18:07
It appears that my origional answer to the Thread which was simply 'Good!' was not allowed. I therefore have added the required verbiage, the sentiment remains...Good!
She now no longer poses the problem of whether she should have been allowed out or not and has paid in full for the crimes which she and Brady together commited. Justice has been done and been seen to be done!

26th Nov 2002, 12:10
Capt Kaos

While I completely understand where you're coming from in wanting to protect your family, surely the whole point of a criminal justice system is that it doesn't act purely from emotion- it stands back from it.

If we're going to say, "imagine how you'd feel if it were your you/your kids", then we might as well have regular town lynchings.

Only then people would complain that their kid was lynched without reason, they'd say "imagine if it were your kid"....

got to be objective about this, however hard it is with the likes of Brady & Hindley.

I expected this kinda answer before from people wearing goat hair socks and sandals (not you Wedge!)...... bringing in the lynchings is of course the usual BS from the liberals and animal activists which knocks down every discussion about justice.
It's about justice......
What's justice? What is justice for a pervert child torturer, raper and killer?
Who finds pleasure in recording a begging, pleading, crying kid in absolute death fear? Can you be objective about THAT??
Objective my @ss, I'm sick and tired of these composed and "reasonable" people who smuther everything into psycholigic blabberish and relate everything to their background. There are millions of people who have had a bad childhood and do you think they all become child rapist/killers? If that's a fact than this world would become a very sorry place. It's turning the whole system upside down, we cannot and will not adept to these psychopaths who are the scum of the earth.

No, not lynching, if it's proved beyond doubt in court that these people are guilty, the death penalty must be convicted and executed, swiftly and cleanly (unlike the death of their victims) THAT's the different between these psychopaths and civilisation. The system owes this to the victims, their relatives and the society. I refuse to give in to all the psychologists, psychiatrist, siocologists, therapists and other armchair scholars who's thinkings are clogged with theories and who all try to find the reasons and the good side of these psychopaths and DON'T have any feeling with the consequences and emotions of the society.

Of my soap box now.....



26th Nov 2002, 19:57
I wondered when the abuse would start...

you said -"I expected this kinda answer before from people wearing goat hair socks and sandals (not you Wedge!)...... bringing in the lynchings is of course the usual BS from the liberals and animal activists which knocks down every discussion about justice"

so I'm an animal activist eh? tell that to the piece of sh*t anti-hunt campaigners who attempted to beat the cr*p out of me at a fox hunt earlier this year.

I realise I'm in a minority on this board (and in the country I guess), but revenge and justice are not the same thing.

Violence towards criminals is entirely justified if you catch them at it - Fred Barras is certainly no loss to the world, and it's an absolute disgrace that Mr Martin went to jail for shooting the toerag - I'd have had no problem with someone shooting Myra Hindley if they were trying to stop her committing a crime.

I also never said that it was because of a dodgy childhood - it's down to the individual, and I'm not saying that Brady & Hindley were not evil - I would just prefer that the State applies the same laws to itself - this is not the USSR, whose laws a lot of people seem to long for.

better men than me said it well:

‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life , Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’

- United States Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

27th Nov 2002, 07:31
...and those who deprive others of their lives deliberately should forfeit their own?

We are now thrown back on the circumstances and the passing of judgement. Being only human this is very varied. So we muddle by as we have done for millenia, imperfectly, and without pleasing everybody. But there are generaly laws in any human society, and it is recognised that certain crimes are more heinous and deserve greater punishment, the degree is of course the biggie.

Those sustained by faith of course can hand that happily over to the final court appearence we all make one day. In the meantime we will soldier on with the interim compromises that are cobbled together and dished out by the judicial systems we have fashioned for ourselves; which are all we have at the moment, unless we are amongst those unlucky enough to live where the mob rules and justice, or lack of it, is whimsical and arbitary.

Martin was judged by the system that prevails in the UK a sentence was passed after due consideration of the circumstances. For better or for worse that is the system we have. It applies to everyone and generaly it is acknowledged to be reasonably fair. The boy is dead, he paid. Let Martin serve his time and he will have paid.

27th Nov 2002, 10:25
"I wondered when the abuse would start... "

Crowe, abuse? LOL you ain't seen nothing yet mate and yes my remark on animal activists was out of line, sorry.

Death penalty is not a revenge it's justice done in the court room as I've pointed out above. Despite whay you might think I'm not a passionate DP follower, but in case of child abusers/killers, mass murderers/psychopaths i.e compulsive killers, death penalty is justice.



27th Nov 2002, 21:52

ok, abuse was too strong a word - I just have a bee in my bonnet about animal rights loonies and the other assorted lefty w*nkers you compared me too!

Clearly we're going to have to agree to differ - though I did find your point about "psychopaths...compulsive killers" interesting - that obviously applies to Ian Brady, who I would never want to be freed. Since he wants to die, arguably the death penalty would have been more merciful than life in Broadmoor/Rampton or wherever.

I'm not sure Hindley was in the same league - she almost certainly would not have done those things without him, whereas he would have done them without her - there is a difference.

I do agree that a legal killing by a court is not a lynching - that was a bit of a drunken (yeah it was early but I got up early) rant. But frankly the thought of the likes of Tony Blair & David Blunkett being able legally to kill people scares me silly.