..... - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
Expired

.....

Carley Avatar
8y, 5m agoPosted 8 years, 5 months ago
.....
Carley Avatar
8y, 5m agoPosted 8 years, 5 months ago
Options

All Comments

(43) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
#1
Look like the evidence was stacked against him. But it's up to the courts to punish him. This vigilante stuff worries me. I heard of a story a few years back in US where a man was beaten to death because the 'vigilantes' beleived that he was a paedo. They got the wrong man, the victim shared the same name as the paedo and was murdered for crimes he didn't commit.
#2
I don't think stabbing guilty people is the way to go.
#3
But innocent people are put at risk from 'vigilantes' who dont get their facts right. Imagine if you shared your name with a convicted paedophile and some donut vigilantes started attacking you and your family...
#4
In Portsmouth a few years ago a family were hounded out of their home following vigilante riots who believed the one of the occupants was a paedophile. Their crime? They were a paediatrician, and the delightful people who lived around them didn't understand the difference...
Not the same as this story I know, but it certainly serves to show the pitfalls of vigilante behaviour.
#5
Sheriff Waffles
But innocent people are put at risk from 'vigilantes' who dont get their facts right. Imagine if you shared your name with a convicted paedophile and some donut vigilantes started attacking you and your family...


Don't be a spoilsport. Don't you fancy going out to stab a few people to death who you judge to have got light sentences?
1 Like #6
thesaint;2279254
I don't think stabbing guilty people is the way to go.

Too right its wrong to stab guilty paedophiles it may kill them and end their lives quickly, the way forward is a good kicking every three months by a nominated member of their victims family and branding with the word nonce on their forehead!:whistling::whistling::whistling: Make them live a long life of suffering like their victims endure!:whistling::whistling:
banned#7
thesaint
I don't think stabbing guilty people is the way to go.


Where does it say he was guilty of anything or are you talking about a different stabbing?

Is it wrong that this happened before court proceedings?

yes, but are you saying it would be right if it happened afterwards instead?
#8
colinsunderland
Where does it say he was guilty of anything or are you talking about a different stabbing?


(Should be the penalty for all guilty offenders IMO.)
#9
harlzter
Too right its wrong to stab guilty paedophiles it may kill them and end their lives quickly, the way forward is a good kicking every three months by a nominated member of their victims family and branding with the word nonce on their forehead!:whistling::whistling::whistling: Make them live a long life of suffering like their victims endure!:whistling::whistling:


Spot on.Absolutely spot on.
banned#10
he never abused any children or anything he just had a few pics he was harmless he shouldnt have been stabbed


""As far as we're concerned, we've no evidence to support charges of vigilantism in this case. We have no reports of any criminal activity associated with Mr Harries since he's been at Dythel Park.""

looks like he would have been stabbed no matter what proceedings were happening against him
#11
Proximo;2279600
he never abused any children or anything he just had a few pics he was harmless he shouldnt have been stabbed

You mean nobody has been reported being abused by him, its very few who would possess photo's of this nature without at least contemplating commiting acts of a paedophilic nature.
banned#12
harlzter
You mean nobody has been reported being abused by him, its very few who would possess photo's of this nature without at least contemplating commiting acts of a paedophilic nature.


maybe, or maybe he just wanted to enjoy children in a sexual way without actually confronting them in person

there alot more deserving people of a stabbing :thinking:
#13
What about we stab all people found guilty of crimes? Or have a rolling program of stab-worthy cons? :thinking:
banned#14
Carley
Supporting this sick industry by 'just' possessing a few 'harmless' pics means there will always be people abducting or even harming their own innocent children to take these photos for the sake of other like minded sick vile pervert scum. It is not harmless to possess photos of this nature at all, get a grip.


im just saying this man was relatively harmless....small potatoes on the peadophile rankings

if civilians want to go grab a pitchfork and do something about actual child abusers who are living great lives on your tax money then why dont you go and do it, I suppose it's easier to sit at a computer and cheer on when some chav stabs him
#15
Paedophiles always start off with something minor. The ascendancy of the internet has made the access to these images much easier.
For people to look for this type of thing shows that they have tendancy towards sex with children, I dont know how you can possibly say someone with these tendencies is harmless.
This type of behaviour, pictures etc. should be the early warning system for the authorities and they should be dealt with by zero tolorence.
Simple question, If you had kids would you want to live next door to one of these people? If the answer is no, they need taking out of society. Not sure about vigilantes, in my experience they have only ever gotten their facts wrong
#16
ADZ1478
Paedophiles always start off with something minor. The ascendancy of the internet has made the access to these images much easier.
For people to look for this type of thing shows that they have tendancy towards sex with children, I dont know how you can possibly say someone with these tendencies is harmless.
This type of behaviour, pictures etc. should be the early warning system for the authorities and they should be dealt with by zero tolorence.
Simple question, If you had kids would you want to live next door to one of these people? If the answer is no, they need taking out of society. Not sure about vigilantes, in my experience they have only ever gotten their facts wrong


He said "relatively harmless" compared to the people who actually abuse the children not that they are harmless. My neighbour turned out to be a paedophile, moved here when I was 8 and he disappeared one night in a car with flashy blue lights on top. I was never touched nor was any other child in the street and he had pictures on his computer from long before I moved here. Some people obviously prefer looking at pictures than doing the deed and those people do not deserve to be stabbed
[mod]#17
Innocent until proven guilty. I think that this is a terrible advert for our country. Obviously someone had a personal vendetta but I bet that particular person wasnt a party to the trial. I think its awful how this has happened before a verdit (not that that would change my opinion on whether someone should be unlawfully killed in the Queens peace).
#18
So if this harmless peado had a "harmless" photo of your son/daugther, you wouldn't mind??? I can't say what I would do to him as it's so sick beyond words that I'd probably be banned off her, and that's how I feel about all peadophiles- whether they have "harmless" photos, or do the deed.

How long will it be before "harmless" photos just aren't enough???
#19
midjet666
So if this harmless peado had a "harmless" photo of your son/daugther, you wouldn't mind??? I can't say what I would do to him as it's so sick beyond words that I'd probably be banned off her, and that's how I feel about all peadophiles- whether they have "harmless" photos, or do the deed.

How long will it be before "harmless" photos just aren't enough???


Have the courage of your convictions and grab a blade, and a telephone book 2008/9.
#20
midjet666;2280378
So if this harmless peado had a "harmless" photo of your son/daugther, you wouldn't mind??? I can't say what I would do to him as it's so sick beyond words that I'd probably be banned off her, and that's how I feel about all peadophiles- whether they have "harmless" photos, or do the deed.

How long will it be before "harmless" photos just aren't enough???


Im with you there midjet you coming out to play tomorrow night:whistling:
#21
thesaint
Have the courage of your convictions and grab a blade, and a telephone book 2008/9.


What do you mean by this comment? I really don't understand it
#22
harlzter
Im with you there midjet you coming out to play tomorrow night:whistling:


Of course :thumbsup: How are you anyway??
#23
midjet666;2280444
Of course :thumbsup: How are you anyway??

I'm good darl hows yourself?
#24
I live by there...
#25
harlzter
I'm good darl hows yourself?


I'm not too bad thank you, my diets really gone up the swanny this week!! I've sat and eaten a whole pack of Party Rings!!! :thumbsup:
#26
Carley
Supporting this sick industry by 'just' possessing a few 'harmless' pics means there will always be people abducting or even harming their own innocent children to take these photos for the sake of other like minded sick vile pervert scum. It is not harmless to possess photos of this nature at all, get a grip.

Couldn't agree more. Well said.
#27
Robotochan, I can understand where you are coming from, you were never harmed etc. But what about the people who were to obtain the "harmless" photographs?
14 years now into a policing career all of which has been spent on the front line leads me to conclude through a mass of experience that none of this behaviour is "relatively harmless" someone is always hurt.
If your neighbours photos were harmless he wouldnt have been taken in by the police. It is also very rare that these people do things on their own doorstep, they tend to attend at arranged meetings where they take their "relatively harmless" pictures of a poor young child. Any way you look at this it will never be "Relatively harmless" and your views display everything that is wrong with this country in accepting this behaviour. Deal with it early and deal with it quickly.
banned#28
Carley
The original point i was trying to make in this particular case is the offender was punished before the courts made a decision, but looking into the case it is quite obvious that there was sufficient reason for what happened here. I think he got what he deserved and wondered if i was alone?


Got a link to the extra information that you have seen regarding this case?

It could be that he bought the computer second hand.
It could be that a family member or friend downloaded them and he is (misguidely) trying to protect them by not naming them).

I'm sure there are other reasons too that he might have been found not guilty.

As for he got what he deserved (even assuming he was guilty) - you are joking right?
So what offences are you saying people deserve to be murdered for?
Obviously child porn or anything to do with the abuse of children? A lot of people think the McCanns are guilty of abuse for leaving the kid alone, so they should be stabbed to death?
What about car theives, shoplifters? What about a woman who has been abused by her husband for years, snaps and murders him, a nice stabbing will sort her out eh?

There is no point having a criminal justice system or even a police force if people are going to be vigilantes, and be allowed to do so.
#29
Carley, offenders are most definitely given too much protection. The emphasis of the criminal justice system should always be on the victim. Every day, I see the offender protected. Can you imagine the work that I do to catch one of these people only to see that they dont get sent down and the utter disappointment on the faces of the victims.
On a personal point would I have capital punishment, the answer is a resounding YES. The issue with this is that it quite rightly is an emotive topic, with many parents, myself included, firm in the mindset that I would do anything to protect my daughter.
I firmly believe that the victim should be entitled to have an input into the punishment and that this affords a level of closure and righteousness to the injured party.
You are right that the sentences given out by the court are pathetic. Any offender given 5 years will only serve 2 1/2. I would happily give the government an extra £xxx each month to keep these scum inside and make the place a safer place to live for all of us.
So in answer to your question appertaining to vigilantes dishing out punishment after a person is found guilty, this shouldnt happen in the first place as the offenders should be in prison and It is a failing of the criminal justice system that the democratic wishes of the public regarding the dealing of these people does not take place.
Some people dont like drug addicts, should they be placed against a wall and shot, after all they make the lives of all who come in to contact with them a misery. Murderers? Rapists? Shall we have vigilantes for all of these things. We cant have vigilantes for the exact reason that we have courts
banned#30
Carley
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2099884/Former-policeman-on-child-pornography-charges-stabbed-to-death.html
He was alleged to have had 2,082 images on his computer. The court heard nine of the images found on the computer were classed as level five, the most serious on the scale.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4100003.ece
Mr Harries had been due to stand trial at Cardiff Crown Court on Monday charged with 15 offences of making indecent images of children between May 2005 and December 2007. He was also facing one charge of possessing indecent images on November 26 last year.

That's two separate occasions where he was caught with possessing indecent photo's

And this supports my feelings exactly...
http://finalconflictblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/geoffrey-harries-dead-paedophile.html


I think they are relating to the same thing, just different specimin charges. Just because it was his computer doesn't mean it was him.

That blog - its complaining about sentences being too short, which I agree with.

You didn't answer my question about who else should be stabbed to death though?
#31
Carley,
here, here
banned#32
ADZ1478
Carley, offenders are most definitely given too much protection. The emphasis of the criminal justice system should always be on the victim. Every day, I see the offender protected. Can you imagine the work that I do to catch one of these people only to see that they dont get sent down and the utter disappointment on the faces of the victims.

Thta must be frustrating, and moer so must be the cps decision not to prosecute after you have done all the hard work, that would **** me off big style!

On a personal point would I have capital punishment, the answer is a resounding YES.

I disagree, not so muh because some people don't deserve it, but because there are still murderers getting found guilty then years later being freed on appeal. I'm sure you have seen people get found guilty then later reaslised they aren't (not murder, on any offence).

The issue with this is that it quite rightly is an emotive topic, with many parents, myself included, firm in the mindset that I would do anything to protect my daughter.
I firmly believe that the victim should be entitled to have an input into the punishment and that this affords a level of closure and righteousness to the injured party.

I don't really agree with that. Maybe a letter to the judge for certain offences, but if you allow sentencing to be ruled by emotion rather than law then I think it will pretty much degenerate.

You are right that the sentences given out by the court are pathetic. Any offender given 5 years will only serve 2 1/2. I would happily give the government an extra £xxx each month to keep these scum inside and make the place a safer place to live for all of us.

Well thats not quite right as I'm sure you know, 2.5 years would be with parole at the earliest possible date, that doesn't always happen. Also, the judge is fully aware of the early release scheme, and obviously takes that into account when sentencing. If you removed early release then he would get sentenced to 2.5 years and not the 5 he currently would. As I'm sure you are also aware, its much easier to get someone back in prison if he offends again 6 months after release from a 5 year sentence than it would 6 months after a 2.5 year sentence with no licence period.

So in answer to your question appertaining to vigilantes dishing out punishment after a person is found guilty, this shouldnt happen in the first place as the offenders should be in prison and It is a failing of the criminal justice system that the democratic wishes of the public regarding the dealing of these people does not take place.
Some people dont like drug addicts, should they be placed against a wall and shot, after all they make the lives of all who come in to contact with them a misery. Murderers? Rapists? Shall we have vigilantes for all of these things. We cant have vigilantes for the exact reason that we have courts


Agreed and very well put.

Personally I think sentencing should get a major overhaul with minimum sentences for most crimes, ones that judges can't overule. Look at the 3 strikes for burglary, never gets given. 2 strikes for seriuos violence - supposed to be life, rarely gets given. They are supposed to be mandatory and the judges just ignore them, those judges should be removed from the bar.
banned#33
Carley
i did...
As for he got what he deserved (even assuming he was guilty) - you are joking right?
So what offences are you saying people deserve to be murdered for?
[COLOR="Red"]1. Peodophilia
2. Murder without just cause.
3. Terrorism
[/COLOR]


my apologies, I hadn't read the bits in red :oops:

so who would decide what was just cause for your number 2?
For example if someone owed me £20000 and wouldn't pay it back and I killed him, in my eyes I would have had just cause.
What about if a husband found out his wife was having an affair, he could think he had just cause to kill them both.
[mod]#34
colinsunderland
my apologies, I hadn't read the bits in red :oops:

so who would decide what was just cause for your number 2?
For example if someone owed me £20000 and wouldn't pay it back and I killed him, in my eyes I would have had just cause.
What about if a husband found out his wife was having an affair, he could think he had just cause to kill them both.


WOW...thats pretty eye opening. You are genuinely saying that if you lent someone £20,000 (which I am assuming would be a family member or a friend as you dont just hand this amount of money out to strangers) and they didnt pay you back you would hunt them down and kill them. The term bounty hunter springs to mind. Statements like that shouldnt be made lightly. Very serious is the homicide offence of murder. I would rather pursue it through the courts and keep myself out of jail.
[mod]#35
In response to the last point, chances are she could plead provocation as you said. Slow burn over the years and then the immediate loss of self control. She would probably be convicted of murder but charged with voluntary manslaughter.
banned#36
magicjay1986
WOW...thats pretty eye opening. You are genuinely saying that if you lent someone £20,000 (which I am assuming would be a family member or a friend as you dont just hand this amount of money out to strangers) and they didnt pay you back you would hunt them down and kill them. The term bounty hunter springs to mind. Statements like that shouldnt be made lightly. Very serious is the homicide offence of murder. I would rather pursue it through the courts and keep myself out of jail.


I didn't say anything of the sort, I was trying to point out that what is 'just cause' for one person might not be for another.
Why I chose that as an example is that I have seen numerous times on various forums where someone has been ripped off for a few hundred quid on ebay, people advising them to go down to the persons house with some mates and baseball bats and kick the **** out of the person who ripped them off.

Have you even read the thread? You keep mentioning the courts but this thread is about if people should be allowed to stab someone to death because the courts aren't doing a good enough job.
banned#37
Carley
The courts

So you think the courts will say 'ok, this is very serious and we think the victims will be allowed to stab you to death whenever they feel like it'?

Morally wrong, but if you think you could get away with it then go for it!

Is killing another human not morally wrong?

kind of harsh, i would think of another way of getting back at them

ok, so that wouldn't be acceptable for vigilante action.

You gave a good example of what is just cause in a previous post, a women who is abused by her husband for many years then flips out and kills him, She should get off the death penalty but i would expect her to receive a prison sentence.


So are you talking about the re-introduction of the death penalty now and not allowing people to wander around the streets randomly killing people who have been convicted (or maybe not) of a crime?

I'm not too sure what you are saying TBH, in one post you say you think vigilantes should be allowed to go round stabbing guilty people & in another you say you agree that vigilante actions are wrong because more often than not they get it wrong. So which is it?
[mod]#38
colinsunderland
I didn't say anything of the sort, I was trying to point out that what is 'just cause' for one person might not be for another.
Why I chose that as an example is that I have seen numerous times on various forums where someone has been ripped off for a few hundred quid on ebay, people advising them to go down to the persons house with some mates and baseball bats and kick the **** out of the person who ripped them off.

Have you even read the thread? You keep mentioning the courts but this thread is about if people should be allowed to stab someone to death because the courts aren't doing a good enough job.


The court in this case which we are talking in hadnt even delivered a verdict yet so they were not able to do their job. Idle threats on a forum are not the same as actually stabbing someone. Everything I have said has been in context and my opinion to other peoples comments.
[mod]#39
colinsunderland
I didn't say anything of the sort, I was trying to point out that what is 'just cause' for one person might not be for another.
Why I chose that as an example is that I have seen numerous times on various forums where someone has been ripped off for a few hundred quid on ebay, people advising them to go down to the persons house with some mates and baseball bats and kick the **** out of the person who ripped them off.

Have you even read the thread? You keep mentioning the courts but this thread is about if people should be allowed to stab someone to death because the courts aren't doing a good enough job.


I apologise, I have just re-read the comments and where someone had been replying to you I miscontrued their comments as yours. :oops:
#40
Colin
Nice to hear your views, I dont disagree with you in any area and appreciate an adult debate. My thoughts have been arrived at through years of personal experience and from your comments it appears as though you have a sound knowledge of the criminal justice system also. (if you havent, you are very well read)
With the advent and ascendancy of forensic evidence, the likelihood of an unsafe conviction these days is a lot less than 10 years ago. If we had a bang to rights conviction, it should certainly be a consideration for all injured parties to expect "life". A cold blooded murder no longer means life, it can mean as little as 8 years. The person who has been murdered has no life. A life has got to be worth more
As for emotion, empathy is a human trait and will always be involved in a decision making process, however objective we try to be. I dont think an increase in the paltry sentences dished out would be degeneration, I think it could only be a positive move
As you know, the primary function of a court - judge, jury etc - is to establish guilt. Once this has been done, If I was a victim I would want the right to help determine an appropriate punishment. If someone is more lenient than me in arguing for a certain punishment, then that would be their prerogative and neither you or me should influence them.
Judges are given guidelines on sentencing and there has been many recent early releases of criminals, who are often given a tag. Big wow, major deterrent. Point here is that there are environmental pressures on decisions made by judges as to how long to sentence someone and even further, is the victim advised of the early release of the person who has burgled them and certainly in the case of old folk scared them half to death and had massive effects on their quality of life. What you say about the criminal receiving only 2 1/2 years instead of 5. I firmly believe that this is not a PR stunt, but what the judge really believes the criminal should get.
The 3 strikes you're out situation. I agree fully. I seem to recall a situation a few years ago when we sent all of our criminals to an island called Australia. Now everyone wants to live there. If we shouldnt murder them, how about we send them to Iraq?

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!