Vandals desecrate British WW1 graves in France with racist slogans
Showing posts with label Scum of the Earth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scum of the Earth. Show all posts
Friday, 11 June 2010
Monday, 19 April 2010
The (In)Human Rights Act and Justice
Here's another classic example of how the (In) human rights act is a cause for good, if you are a criminal.
The headline to the Daily Mail article, found through http://uknewsnetwork.blogspot.com/
Paedophile who abducted underage girls for sex wins deportation appeal to stay in UK
An extract;
A Pakistani paedophile who abducted and sexually abused two young girls cannot be deported back to his native country because it would breach his human rights, it emerged today.
Zulfar Hussain, 48, was due to be sent home when he is released from prison halfway through his sentence for plying two vulnerable girls with drugs and alcohol before having sex with them.
But there was fury today when it was revealed that he had won an appeal against his deportation on the grounds that he has a wife and child here, meaning it would breach his right to enjoy respect for his family life.
Can someone please tell me has there been any real good to come out of the human rights act, or is it a criminals rights act only.
How many more stories like this one can we take before the powers that be take notice and either scrap it or change it so the criminals can't take advantage of it.
The headline to the Daily Mail article, found through http://uknewsnetwork.blogspot.com/
Paedophile who abducted underage girls for sex wins deportation appeal to stay in UK
An extract;
A Pakistani paedophile who abducted and sexually abused two young girls cannot be deported back to his native country because it would breach his human rights, it emerged today.
Zulfar Hussain, 48, was due to be sent home when he is released from prison halfway through his sentence for plying two vulnerable girls with drugs and alcohol before having sex with them.
But there was fury today when it was revealed that he had won an appeal against his deportation on the grounds that he has a wife and child here, meaning it would breach his right to enjoy respect for his family life.
Can someone please tell me has there been any real good to come out of the human rights act, or is it a criminals rights act only.
How many more stories like this one can we take before the powers that be take notice and either scrap it or change it so the criminals can't take advantage of it.
Saturday, 17 April 2010
There are thieves and then there's this scum
His name is Darren Pease.The following is taken from this article
An extract
A disgraced banker who stole £315,000 from his disabled niece's charity fund has been ordered to pay back just £1.
Well-wishers donated hundreds of thousands of pounds into a trust for Ellie May Challis, 5, who had all her limbs amputated during a battle with meningitis in 2005.
Her uncle, banker Darren Pease, 33, was made a trustee of the account because of his financial knowledge but was jailed in November last year after admitted siphoning off £315,000 to splash out on jewellery, holidays and computer gadgets.
Pease was taken back to court yesterday after police went through his finances to check if he could repay any of Ellie May's money.
But it was revealed during the proceeds of crime hearing at Basildon Crown Court in Essex that he had spent the lot and was ordered to repay a nominal £1.
A pound, a single solitary £1.
This scum, who is in prison for 4 years, will be housed, fed and get paid to work in prison. I wonder when he will be up for parole? Not long with the way the prison system works.
When someone comes out of prison, they say, they have paid their debt to society, but what about the debt he owes this little girl?
If he ever gains employment, at least a third of his pay should be sent to the Ellie May Challis trust fund, the one he stole from.
I can't describe the anger I feel when I read articles like this.
You have a young girl who tragically loses her limbs, and people join together to donate money to pay for the care of Ellie.
Then you get scum like Darren Pease, who is actually related to Ellie, who was trusted to look after the money, but just stole it and spent all but £239 of the £315,000.
I wish he could spend just one day living the life of Ellie, with no limbs, and then see how he feels about what he has done.
Friday, 16 April 2010
The (IN) Human Rights Act and Justice
Can the European Convention on Human Rights and the justice system ever run to the same tune.
I have blogged about the human rights act here, here and here.
Now we have another example.
Illegal immigrant rapist could stay in UK
An illegal immigrant who raped a woman but was not caught for 18 years could avoid deportation because of his human rights to a family life.
An extract;
Sukdarshan Singh, an Indian, arrived in Britain unlawfully in 1984 and raped a 59-year-old woman four years later.
He was only linked to the attack in 2006 after being arrested for drink driving and was jailed for four and a half years.
An immigration tribunal ruled he should be deported but the Court of Appeal yesterday overturned the decision because it had failed to take in to account his rights to family life as he now has a British wife and two teenage children.
If this guy entered the country illegally, how was he able to legally get married?
According to the appeal court, if you enter the country illegally, commit a serious crime, get away with it for 20 years, get jailed for a very short time, you can stay in the country.
An extract
Yesterday, he was appealing against the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) finding which upheld the decision of the Home Secretary to return him to India.
But Lord Justice Aikens said the "overall question" in the case was whether deportation would be a disproportionate interference with his private and family life protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Justice Aikens says, 'deportation would be a disproportionate interference with his private and family life under the human rights act.'
Once again I say, what about the human rights of the victim. She was raped by this scum, but as usual the rights of the victim is second to the rights of the scum who raped her.
An extract;
He said the AIT should have balanced the threat of family breakdown, the effect on the children and feasibility of a move to India with the aim of deportation in protecting the public.
The effect on the children and feasibility of moving to India. What about the effect on the children finding out their father is a rapist.
Send the father back to India and let the kids stay in the UK.
Everyone has a human right to live and feel safe in their community and their home. If someone commits a crime they should lose certain rights.
If an illegal immigrant commits a crime then that person should be sent back to the country he came from, even if he has a family here.
People are not getting justice due to the (In) Human Rights Act.
I have blogged about the human rights act here, here and here.
Now we have another example.
Illegal immigrant rapist could stay in UK
An illegal immigrant who raped a woman but was not caught for 18 years could avoid deportation because of his human rights to a family life.
An extract;
Sukdarshan Singh, an Indian, arrived in Britain unlawfully in 1984 and raped a 59-year-old woman four years later.
He was only linked to the attack in 2006 after being arrested for drink driving and was jailed for four and a half years.
An immigration tribunal ruled he should be deported but the Court of Appeal yesterday overturned the decision because it had failed to take in to account his rights to family life as he now has a British wife and two teenage children.
If this guy entered the country illegally, how was he able to legally get married?
According to the appeal court, if you enter the country illegally, commit a serious crime, get away with it for 20 years, get jailed for a very short time, you can stay in the country.
An extract
Yesterday, he was appealing against the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) finding which upheld the decision of the Home Secretary to return him to India.
But Lord Justice Aikens said the "overall question" in the case was whether deportation would be a disproportionate interference with his private and family life protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Justice Aikens says, 'deportation would be a disproportionate interference with his private and family life under the human rights act.'
Once again I say, what about the human rights of the victim. She was raped by this scum, but as usual the rights of the victim is second to the rights of the scum who raped her.
An extract;
He said the AIT should have balanced the threat of family breakdown, the effect on the children and feasibility of a move to India with the aim of deportation in protecting the public.
The effect on the children and feasibility of moving to India. What about the effect on the children finding out their father is a rapist.
Send the father back to India and let the kids stay in the UK.
Everyone has a human right to live and feel safe in their community and their home. If someone commits a crime they should lose certain rights.
If an illegal immigrant commits a crime then that person should be sent back to the country he came from, even if he has a family here.
People are not getting justice due to the (In) Human Rights Act.
Thursday, 8 April 2010
Why has this been allowed to happen?
I cannot believe this has been allowed to happen.
The following comes from this article
Eleven rapists and hundreds of other sex offenders 'let off with cautions'
Eleven rapists and hundreds of other self-confessed sex offenders have been let off with cautions over the past five years in one police force area alone, figures show.
An extract;
More than 600 cautions were issued for crimes that include rape and child abuse in Avon and Somerset since 2004, police admitted.
Cautions are handed out when guilt is admitted and mean offenders do not appear in court, do not have their names made public and they do not risk going to prison.
You have people committing some of the most serious crimes against a person and they get a caution. No wonder the reporting of rapes is at an all time low.
An extract;
The figures, released under the Freedom of Information Act, showed cautions as punishment for sexual offences increased over the five years within the force area.
A total of 611 sex offenders were issued with cautions by the constabulary after the criminals admitted guilt, officers said.
Were they thinking that once the criminals were given the caution, they would be good and not do it again, yeah right
These included 11 rapists who confessed their crimes. Four of those had admitted the rape of a child under the age of 13.
How the **** can you not jail these scum, they admitted the crime. Why aren't they in jail now?
What about the safety to the public?
What is stopping them from committing the same crime again?
The figures also revealed 74 sexual assaults on women, seven on men and 28 on children were dealt with by caution rather being taken through the courts.
Four cautions were given for incest or familial sexual offences, two for abuse of children through prostitution or pornography and two for sexual grooming.
Who ever agreed to these cautions, for these serious crimes, should be put in jail themselves for endangering the public.
The country is a joke.
You get jailed for letting a few people smoke in your pub.
You have people going to jail for not paying the council tax.
But if you rape a child you get a caution
What a wonderful country we live in. NOT
The following comes from this article
Eleven rapists and hundreds of other sex offenders 'let off with cautions'
Eleven rapists and hundreds of other self-confessed sex offenders have been let off with cautions over the past five years in one police force area alone, figures show.
An extract;
More than 600 cautions were issued for crimes that include rape and child abuse in Avon and Somerset since 2004, police admitted.
Cautions are handed out when guilt is admitted and mean offenders do not appear in court, do not have their names made public and they do not risk going to prison.
You have people committing some of the most serious crimes against a person and they get a caution. No wonder the reporting of rapes is at an all time low.
An extract;
The figures, released under the Freedom of Information Act, showed cautions as punishment for sexual offences increased over the five years within the force area.
A total of 611 sex offenders were issued with cautions by the constabulary after the criminals admitted guilt, officers said.
Were they thinking that once the criminals were given the caution, they would be good and not do it again, yeah right
These included 11 rapists who confessed their crimes. Four of those had admitted the rape of a child under the age of 13.
How the **** can you not jail these scum, they admitted the crime. Why aren't they in jail now?
What about the safety to the public?
What is stopping them from committing the same crime again?
The figures also revealed 74 sexual assaults on women, seven on men and 28 on children were dealt with by caution rather being taken through the courts.
Four cautions were given for incest or familial sexual offences, two for abuse of children through prostitution or pornography and two for sexual grooming.
Who ever agreed to these cautions, for these serious crimes, should be put in jail themselves for endangering the public.
The country is a joke.
You get jailed for letting a few people smoke in your pub.
You have people going to jail for not paying the council tax.
But if you rape a child you get a caution
What a wonderful country we live in. NOT
Wednesday, 31 March 2010
This is hard to believe.
I have just read this article, and I am stunned.
This is the headline;
Police refuse to name sex offenders on the run 'because of their RIGHT to privacy'
An extract;
Police are refusing to reveal the identities of sex offenders who are on the run - because it would be an invasion of their privacy.
An invasion of their privacy. For crying out loud, don't they think that they could be a danger to the public.
Four registered sex offenders have been on the run for as long as two years after disappearing from their homes in the North-East.
But confusion over whether the wanted criminals should be identified means that just one of them has been made known to the public, sparking fury among victim's groups.
Cleveland Police was the only force that agreed to issue the name and photograph of a man who has been missing since last year.
This is what might happen when they lose these sex offenders.
Police across the country came in for heavy criticism after Peter Chapman breached his order by leaving home in the North-West to go on the run.
Merseyside Police failed to issue a national alert to other forces until six months after he disappeared, while Durham, North Yorkshire and Cleveland Police missed a series of chances to catch him when he car was seen on CCTV in the region 16 times.
He was arrested on October 26, the day after he kidnapped, raped and killed Ashleigh Hall.
If someone is on the sex offenders register and the police lose them, then the police have a public duty to inform us.
Once again we see the criminals rights take precedent over the rights of the victims and the public.
This is the headline;
Police refuse to name sex offenders on the run 'because of their RIGHT to privacy'
An extract;
Police are refusing to reveal the identities of sex offenders who are on the run - because it would be an invasion of their privacy.
An invasion of their privacy. For crying out loud, don't they think that they could be a danger to the public.
Four registered sex offenders have been on the run for as long as two years after disappearing from their homes in the North-East.
But confusion over whether the wanted criminals should be identified means that just one of them has been made known to the public, sparking fury among victim's groups.
Cleveland Police was the only force that agreed to issue the name and photograph of a man who has been missing since last year.
This is what might happen when they lose these sex offenders.
Police across the country came in for heavy criticism after Peter Chapman breached his order by leaving home in the North-West to go on the run.
Merseyside Police failed to issue a national alert to other forces until six months after he disappeared, while Durham, North Yorkshire and Cleveland Police missed a series of chances to catch him when he car was seen on CCTV in the region 16 times.
He was arrested on October 26, the day after he kidnapped, raped and killed Ashleigh Hall.
If someone is on the sex offenders register and the police lose them, then the police have a public duty to inform us.
Once again we see the criminals rights take precedent over the rights of the victims and the public.
The Judicial System is Insane
Read this headline from this article
Rapist avoids deportation so that he can marry in Britain
A convicted rapist facing deportation has won a High Court battle to be allowed to stay in the country to get married.
How in gods name can this be allowed to happen?
An extract
Alphonse Semo, a refugee from the Democratic Republic of Congo, threw his victim on a rubbish tip when he had finished with her.
But on Monday evening he won the right to remain for his wedding just hours before he was due to board a plane back to Africa.
A judge said it was difficult to have any sympathy for Semo, who was jailed for eight years, but he must be allowed to stay.
Why must he be allowed to stay?
Just because he wants to get married shouldn't be justification to let him stay in this country.
An extract;
The judge said the Home Secretary would have to reconsider later, after the marriage, whether to make a fresh attempt to deport him.
That would engage issues of EU law as his bride-to-be, Bunsana Kalonji, is a refugee from the Congo who became a German national.
The pair have a long-established relationship. Ms Kalonji is in the UK, exercising her right to work here under Community law.
Once married, the pair are expected to claim that Semo is legally entitled to remain in the UK as the spouse of an European Economic Area national entitled to free movement within EU member states, including the UK.
So once married he is legally entitled to remain in the UK and have free movement with in the EU.
Fine, just one question.
What about the rights of the woman who this scum raped.
What about the rights of the law abiding people of this country to feel safe.
Once again the criminal's rights take precedent over the victim's rights.
If this woman, really wants to marry this scum then take him to live in Germany, but I bet Germany will some how refuse him entry.
Once again we are being screwed by the EU regulations.
We used to have a justice system in this county, but due to so many new regulations and the in-human rights act it is turning into a joke.
Rapist avoids deportation so that he can marry in Britain
A convicted rapist facing deportation has won a High Court battle to be allowed to stay in the country to get married.
How in gods name can this be allowed to happen?
An extract
Alphonse Semo, a refugee from the Democratic Republic of Congo, threw his victim on a rubbish tip when he had finished with her.
But on Monday evening he won the right to remain for his wedding just hours before he was due to board a plane back to Africa.
A judge said it was difficult to have any sympathy for Semo, who was jailed for eight years, but he must be allowed to stay.
Why must he be allowed to stay?
Just because he wants to get married shouldn't be justification to let him stay in this country.
An extract;
The judge said the Home Secretary would have to reconsider later, after the marriage, whether to make a fresh attempt to deport him.
That would engage issues of EU law as his bride-to-be, Bunsana Kalonji, is a refugee from the Congo who became a German national.
The pair have a long-established relationship. Ms Kalonji is in the UK, exercising her right to work here under Community law.
Once married, the pair are expected to claim that Semo is legally entitled to remain in the UK as the spouse of an European Economic Area national entitled to free movement within EU member states, including the UK.
So once married he is legally entitled to remain in the UK and have free movement with in the EU.
Fine, just one question.
What about the rights of the woman who this scum raped.
What about the rights of the law abiding people of this country to feel safe.
Once again the criminal's rights take precedent over the victim's rights.
If this woman, really wants to marry this scum then take him to live in Germany, but I bet Germany will some how refuse him entry.
Once again we are being screwed by the EU regulations.
We used to have a justice system in this county, but due to so many new regulations and the in-human rights act it is turning into a joke.
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
A Shocking Story
I have just read this Blog by G.O.T which links to this story on Old Holborn Blog.
I am shocked, angry and so incensed at what is happening in Scotland.
As G.O.T says Read the blog and spread the word.
I am shocked, angry and so incensed at what is happening in Scotland.
As G.O.T says Read the blog and spread the word.
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
Crime and Punishment
This is the headline to this article from Sky News
Teen Child Rapist Who Struck Again Named
Here is an extract from the article;
A teenager who was jailed for sexually assaulting a nine-year-old girl while already on bail after raping a 10-year-old girl has been named.
Why in god's name was he on bail for rape, of a 10 year old, in the first place?
What were they thinking letting a sex attacker, of young girls, out on the streets again.
Didn't they think he might attack someone else. Don't they think rape is a serious crime any more?
Another extract from the article;
On Monday, Heaton was ordered to serve a minimum of five years behind bars at Liverpool Crown Court for the "truly chilling" ordeal he subjected on his victims.
After two sex attacks, one of them a rape, they give him five, yes that's right 5 years.
He should be in jail for at the very least 15 - 20 years, before he is even up for parole.
What if he is still a danger to the public after the five years, will they still let him out?
They probably would because it will be against his (in) human rights.
This is a another extract from the article;
His identity has now been revealed after Judge David Harris QC ended a legal delay, which had been placed to ensure security could be installed to protect the boy from his prison inmates.
'Protect the boy from his prison inmates'.
The victims may not of got proper justice, but from what i have heard there is nothing like justice given out by fellow prisoners to sick twisted monsters like this scum.
Teen Child Rapist Who Struck Again Named
Here is an extract from the article;
A teenager who was jailed for sexually assaulting a nine-year-old girl while already on bail after raping a 10-year-old girl has been named.
Why in god's name was he on bail for rape, of a 10 year old, in the first place?
What were they thinking letting a sex attacker, of young girls, out on the streets again.
Didn't they think he might attack someone else. Don't they think rape is a serious crime any more?
Another extract from the article;
On Monday, Heaton was ordered to serve a minimum of five years behind bars at Liverpool Crown Court for the "truly chilling" ordeal he subjected on his victims.
After two sex attacks, one of them a rape, they give him five, yes that's right 5 years.
He should be in jail for at the very least 15 - 20 years, before he is even up for parole.
What if he is still a danger to the public after the five years, will they still let him out?
They probably would because it will be against his (in) human rights.
This is a another extract from the article;
His identity has now been revealed after Judge David Harris QC ended a legal delay, which had been placed to ensure security could be installed to protect the boy from his prison inmates.
'Protect the boy from his prison inmates'.
The victims may not of got proper justice, but from what i have heard there is nothing like justice given out by fellow prisoners to sick twisted monsters like this scum.
Tuesday, 15 December 2009
Crime & Punishment?
I just read this on the Sky News website
Nursery worker Vanessa George will serve a minimum of seven years in jail as part of an indeterminate sentence after she sexually abused young children in her care.
The indeterminate sentence means that if she shows that she is not a danger to the public or children, then she will be let out in seven years.
I blogged about 'How Long is a Life Sentence' back in October and I was wondering how long her sentence would be.
I thought that because of the serious abuse that she gave those children she would get at least 20 years before she would be up for parole.
Well she didn't get 20 years, she got an indeterminate sentence, which could mean that she will be locked up for a lot longer than seven years, but all she has to do is trick the parole board into thinking she isn't a danger.
If she does get out, will she be given a new identity paid for by the tax payer?
I have tried to keep calm while writing this blog, but the thought of this scum of the earth being let out just makes me so damn angry and upset.
Why doesn't the punishment fit the crime any more?
Why is it that the government is letting serious offending criminals out from prison early only for them to rob, rape and murder again?
I want to feel safe in my own country again, i want to know that if someone is guilty of a crime that they will be punished accordingly. All they are getting now is a slap on the wrist.
Nursery worker Vanessa George will serve a minimum of seven years in jail as part of an indeterminate sentence after she sexually abused young children in her care.
The indeterminate sentence means that if she shows that she is not a danger to the public or children, then she will be let out in seven years.
I blogged about 'How Long is a Life Sentence' back in October and I was wondering how long her sentence would be.
I thought that because of the serious abuse that she gave those children she would get at least 20 years before she would be up for parole.
Well she didn't get 20 years, she got an indeterminate sentence, which could mean that she will be locked up for a lot longer than seven years, but all she has to do is trick the parole board into thinking she isn't a danger.
If she does get out, will she be given a new identity paid for by the tax payer?
I have tried to keep calm while writing this blog, but the thought of this scum of the earth being let out just makes me so damn angry and upset.
Why doesn't the punishment fit the crime any more?
Why is it that the government is letting serious offending criminals out from prison early only for them to rob, rape and murder again?
I want to feel safe in my own country again, i want to know that if someone is guilty of a crime that they will be punished accordingly. All they are getting now is a slap on the wrist.
Thursday, 8 October 2009
Things that make me smile.
I was sent two links today on my email and both of them made me smile.
They aren't jokes, but more of a comeuppance to so called hard, in your face, scum you see on our streets nowadays.
The first is of a home owner standing his ground while being shouted at by a 'hard' in your face youth. In the video he shouts and swears at the home owner threatening him and trying to get him to fight.
See what happens and see how hard this hard man really is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oefo00eB_1Q
The other one is about what looks like a night out and a couple of drunken youths fighting and then walking away. As they walk away they start on some cross dressers, but what they don't realise is that the two cross dressers are actually cage fighters. oh dear me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCE5VbgpP3I
Now just to let you know i don't like violence, and i would rather walk away from anything that may become violent, but what these two got for trying to be hard men made me smile. Getting what's coming to you, comes to mind.
They aren't jokes, but more of a comeuppance to so called hard, in your face, scum you see on our streets nowadays.
The first is of a home owner standing his ground while being shouted at by a 'hard' in your face youth. In the video he shouts and swears at the home owner threatening him and trying to get him to fight.
See what happens and see how hard this hard man really is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oefo00eB_1Q
The other one is about what looks like a night out and a couple of drunken youths fighting and then walking away. As they walk away they start on some cross dressers, but what they don't realise is that the two cross dressers are actually cage fighters. oh dear me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCE5VbgpP3I
Now just to let you know i don't like violence, and i would rather walk away from anything that may become violent, but what these two got for trying to be hard men made me smile. Getting what's coming to you, comes to mind.
Saturday, 3 October 2009
How Long is a Life Sentence?
A couple of ('scum of the earth') youths, , savagely, beat up and kill a father of five.
They get put on trial and found guilty, and get sentenced to life imprisonment.
Job done.
But it isn't, because they are up for parole after just 11 and 13 years. That isn't a life sentence.
A life sentence, to me, should be a minimum of 25-30 years before they are up for parole.
What those two youths did to that poor man was beyond savage. Add to that that they didn't even show any remorse shows that those two scum should never be let out of prison. They are a danger to the public.
When they sentence people, the judges should have basic guidelines for sentencing.
For example;
If it is premeditated murder or murder with malice, the sentence should be something like 25 years (until eligible for parole) up to life without parole (where they die in prison), which those two scum should of received.
The whole sentencing system for courts and magistrates should be reassessed. The American system of 'three strikes' where if you are found guilty for a third (felony) offence you are sentenced to life without parole. Maybe the British system can use something like this as a template for the more serious of crimes, from assault to burglary to fraud, for example.
Each time you are found guilty the sentence increases, and if you are found guilty for a third time for a serious offence, the sentence should be at the very least 15-25 years.
I don't know how to stop what is happening in our streets, but there needs to be a deterrent out there because criminals are getting away with murder, quite literally.
On another subject, it will be interesting to see what the judge will sentence those three scum paedophiles to. If it is anything below 20-25 years then there will be uproar.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6250989/Nursery-worker-Vanessa-George-judge-asks-her-to-reveal-identities-of-victims.html
I really don't want to write too much about this because i get so angry and upset.
I haven't got any children of my own, but i am very protective of my nephews, nieces and my friends children, and the thought of someone hurting them, well anger will be an understatement.
They get put on trial and found guilty, and get sentenced to life imprisonment.
Job done.
But it isn't, because they are up for parole after just 11 and 13 years. That isn't a life sentence.
A life sentence, to me, should be a minimum of 25-30 years before they are up for parole.
What those two youths did to that poor man was beyond savage. Add to that that they didn't even show any remorse shows that those two scum should never be let out of prison. They are a danger to the public.
When they sentence people, the judges should have basic guidelines for sentencing.
For example;
If it is premeditated murder or murder with malice, the sentence should be something like 25 years (until eligible for parole) up to life without parole (where they die in prison), which those two scum should of received.
The whole sentencing system for courts and magistrates should be reassessed. The American system of 'three strikes' where if you are found guilty for a third (felony) offence you are sentenced to life without parole. Maybe the British system can use something like this as a template for the more serious of crimes, from assault to burglary to fraud, for example.
Each time you are found guilty the sentence increases, and if you are found guilty for a third time for a serious offence, the sentence should be at the very least 15-25 years.
I don't know how to stop what is happening in our streets, but there needs to be a deterrent out there because criminals are getting away with murder, quite literally.
On another subject, it will be interesting to see what the judge will sentence those three scum paedophiles to. If it is anything below 20-25 years then there will be uproar.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6250989/Nursery-worker-Vanessa-George-judge-asks-her-to-reveal-identities-of-victims.html
I really don't want to write too much about this because i get so angry and upset.
I haven't got any children of my own, but i am very protective of my nephews, nieces and my friends children, and the thought of someone hurting them, well anger will be an understatement.
Sunday, 23 August 2009
Words fail me
I cannot describe the anger i feel right now.
Read the article and see what you think
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208071/Elderly-war-veteran-left-bloodied-bruised-following-vicious-mugging--hours-scattering-wifes-ashes.,html
Read the article and see what you think
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208071/Elderly-war-veteran-left-bloodied-bruised-following-vicious-mugging--hours-scattering-wifes-ashes.,html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)