Ian Huntley,Tony Martin got it right.

[ditchy]

If your kids were in the house whilst you were being burgled you'd do anything to protect them, and I know I'd choose their life over some burglar, no scum bag would get past me if that were the case.

quite agree race /tank ... does that apply on the field

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

I'm not sure how shooting someone who is running away can be described as self defence.

Tony Martin got what he deserved.

Tony Martin should never have called the police he should have buried the scum on his land,and it's liberal lesbians like you that are sending this country down the tubes.

 

[Uncle C]

I'm not sure how shooting someone who is running away can be described as self defence.

Tony Martin got what he deserved.

I aimed at the legs me Lord but the recoil sent the shot higher than I wanted.

 

[bhaexpress]

Sorry but the death penaltyreally offers little or no deterreent, it's purely a matter of retribution. You need to look at the US to see that is the case. The thing is, no matter how stupid they are most criminals don't think they'll get cault. Having said that what really is the point of keeping Ian Huntley and his ilk alive ?

 

[Pigsy]

If your kids were in the house whilst you were being burgled you'd do anything to protect them, and I know I'd choose their life over some burglar, no scum bag would get past me if that were the case.

Thats fine, if they're in the house, but when they're climbing over the back wall, fleeing your house, you should be safe, as should the kids.

 

[Highfields Seagull]

Tony Martin should never have called the police he should have buried the scum on his land,and it's liberal lesbians like you that are sending this country down the tubes.

So the answer to solving crime in this country is to encourage vigilantes?

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

So the answer to solving crime in this country is to encourage vigilantes?

YES

 

[Meade's Ball]

YES

Do you own a cape?

 

[Scoffers]

Sorry but the death penaltyreally offers little or no deterreent, it's purely a matter of retribution. You need to look at the US to see that is the case. The thing is, no matter how stupid they are most criminals don't think they'll get cault. Having said that what really is the point of keeping Ian Huntley and his ilk alive ?

It's more than just about being a deterrant though, it's about ending the life of someone who is prepared to murder, and murder again.

I agree that keeping Huntley alive is pointless, and costly, as I understand it, he's protected against fellow inmates. In Hunley's case, I support executing him, but I'm not for it across the board.

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

But to make Huntley's death a deterrent, it would have to be public, beamed into every school and workplace, and it would have to cause him as much pain as possible - if he was permitted to simply drift off to sleep, then there is no deterrent. Whilst you can sit on here and go "yes, bring it on", in reality this is never going to happen - we hold ourselves morally above countries who take part in public executions, or who do not hold human rights in the same regard we do. Look back to "Death of a Princess" and the outcry that was caused by the public beheading.

Huntley, unfortunately, has to be held up as an example of someone who has forfeited his right to freedom, not someone who has forfeited his right to life. Prison for him should be hard - not the soft option that our prisons have become. The US have hard-labour camps, which is something that he should be serving. If you kill him, his problems have all disappeared. If you keep him alive, you are showing others that this is the result of his crimes, but his life has to be a struggle every single day. We should be adopting a tougher prison regime for those that forfeit their rights, not a death penalty which serves no purpose other than revenge.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Tony Martin shot the guy in the back, but I can understand he didn't want to see the burglar back again as he had been repeatedly robbed.

If I was Martin I'd be worried that if they got away they'd come back again, but next time with weapons.

 

[readingstockport]

Martin didn't murder him. I have no sympathy for scum like that, and don't care what happens to them whilst they go about their "business".

I know someone who sat on Martin's parole board and mosy of you don't actually have a clue what you are talking about. There was far far more to Martin's killing of the burglar than you have any knowledge of.

It was murder, pure and simple.

 

[Pavilionaire]

No it wasn't. They burgled his house, they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

It would have been murder if Martin had taken his shooter round to their houses and shot them when they answered the door.

 

[Scoffers]

But to make Huntley's death a deterrent, it would have to be public, beamed into every school and workplace, and it would have to cause him as much pain as possible - if he was permitted to simply drift off to sleep, then there is no deterrent. Whilst you can sit on here and go "yes, bring it on", in reality this is never going to happen - we hold ourselves morally above countries who take part in public executions, or who do not hold human rights in the same regard we do. Look back to "Death of a Princess" and the outcry that was caused by the public beheading.

Huntley, unfortunately, has to be held up as an example of someone who has forfeited his right to freedom, not someone who has forfeited his right to life. Prison for him should be hard - not the soft option that our prisons have become. The US have hard-labour camps, which is something that he should be serving. If you kill him, his problems have all disappeared. If you keep him alive, you are showing others that this is the result of his crimes, but his life has to be a struggle every single day. We should be adopting a tougher prison regime for those that forfeit their rights, not a death penalty which serves no purpose other than revenge.

I don't agree. Good job we're in a democracy

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

I know someone who sat on Martin's parole board and mosy of you don't actually have a clue what you are talking about. There was far far more to Martin's killing of the burglar than you have any knowledge of.

It was murder, pure and simple.

So your friend, who sat on a closed parole board hearing, has explained it all to you in detail, in direct contravention of the rules and regulations which he signs up to when sitting on parole boards?

Not clever, particularly as by publicly stating this it would be possible to challenge the parole board conclusion based on the unreliability of your friend who has now been proven to be unable to keep the information to himself, and therefore unfit to sit on a parole board!

 

[readingstockport]

No it wasn't. They burgled his house, they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

It would have been murder if Martin had taken his shooter round to their houses and shot them when they answered the door.

So removing the windows in order to make is easy for the burglars to enter, retrieving an illegally held (he'd had his licence revoked) illegal (it was a pump action which are illegal) shotgun from his mothers house where he normally stored it, modifying the house in order to make it difficult for people to get out after they got in (which remember he had simplified by removing windows), shooting the guy in the back as he crawled out of the window in order to try to escape, moving property INTO the house in order to try to entice a burglar. None of this points to the fact that he planned and facilitated the shooting?

Add to this the reason his shotgun licence was revoked, he had discharged it towards a group of ramblers who were quite legally walking on a footpath over a field not once but twice.

Sorry, bu tI know what I think it was. And there is much more information which never got into the papers I assure you.

 

[readingstockport]

So your friend, who sat on a closed parole board hearing, has explained it all to you in detail, in direct contravention of the rules and regulations which he signs up to when sitting on parole boards?

Not clever, particularly as by publicly stating this it would be possible to challenge the parole board conclusion based on the unreliability of your friend who has now been proven to be unable to keep the information to himself, and therefore unfit to sit on a parole board!

No, he has only disclosed information which was revealed in open court but was never reported in the papers.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Yes, but he didn't make them enter his house, they came of their own free will despite being warned that he had a gun.

Are you telling me that if saw somebody's door wide open you'd take that as an invitation to steal?

It doesn't matter what was in the house, or how easy it was to get in or out, they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Christ, how stupid do you have to be to burgle a place repeatedly having been warned you might get shot?

 

[Scoffers]

Yes, but he didn't make them enter his house, they came of their own free will despite being warned that he had a gun.

Are you telling me that if saw somebody's door wide open you'd take that as an invitation to steal?

It doesn't matter what was in the house, or how easy it was to get in or out, they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Christ, how stupid do you have to be to burgle a place repeatedly having been warned you might get shot?

tell you what clive, this man talks sense !

 

[Simster]

Christ, how stupid do you have to be to burgle a place repeatedly having been warned you might get shot?

People do stupid things when they are only SIXTEEN years old.

I'd have had some sympathy with Tony Martin if none of it was premeditated. But it was.