blip

LMAO!! I'm 35 actually but thanks for the complement. I'm sure you didn't intend to come across as condescending

Anyway, so I'm having a bad day and needed a rant. CGAF!

OllyK

And where did I condone mob action or vigilantes????

I just said I don't see why the tax payer should be paying for all of this. If she is attacked then yes the police should follow it up, catch and prosecute those concerned. She has done her time, the courts consider her to be a free woman, well let her get on a live her life as a free woman. If she feels threatened then she needs to do what she needs to, move, report it etc etc, the same as somebody suffering racial abuse or gays being hounded by "queer bashers" and so on. I just don't see why she should be a special case.

the moose

I'm a little confused as to why there was no mention of homosexuality or asylum seekers, then you'd have had a full deck of Daily Mail Top Trumps to play.

Any more prejudices you want to share?

The Guv'nor

Moose- you missed out the disabled!!

T.G.

the moose

Bugger, knew there was one. Must dig into the Mail and Express a little deeper ....

The Guv'nor

Please prepare to be (un)educated when dealing with morons!!

T.G.

tiggers

You indirectly condoned them by the fact you think it's OK for her to fend for herself. You say she has done her time and you're right, but you then seem to think it's OK for her to carry on paying for those crimes at the hands of the UK mob mentality.

I don't like the fact that we have to pay for it either, but in a civilised society I think the alternative of waking up one morning to the news that she has been attacked or even killed by vigilantes is not right.

Your other comments leave me agog - it seems to me what you are effectively saying is that people should have to move if they are the victims of racists, bigots etc. Do you really think that is the solution?

tiggers.

EddScott

How are you so sure she wasn't involved? I haven't read much of the details but I would imagine murdering two girls would be quite hard to hide from your partner.

Again, whose to say she was mistaken. And no, if a relative was linked to a double murder I would not blindly stick up for them.

Granted, it is double standards to demand mob law and then complain becuase she has to be protected from said mob. However, some tabloids will deliberately try to hunt her down.

Paulo P

iTrader: (42)

this is way off topic now The point of the thread was that someone (doesn't matter who to me) got jailed for intimidating winesses. My girlfriend got mugged years ago and I was worried about this sort of thing happening to her but fortunately she never came into contact with him again. I know that this wouldn't have happened normally and they are making an example of it because it's her mother but hey.

Chip

Ever thought that maybe the majority of people think this way not just the Daily Mail.

Chip.

the moose

Funnily enough, no. But I'm certain you do.

blip

Since when is being against leniency to paedophiles, rapists, murderers, etc. a prejudice???

As for what newspaper I read - I read our local rag occasionally. The nationals are all a waste of paper. Although I'm sure whatever you read is 100% accurate and truthful always

Surely you are now being narrow-minded and therefore hypocritical in the way you are making assumptions about me?

blip

Aw shucks, you and the Moose make a sweet couple. LMAO

Suresh

Well said that man.

Whilst were on the subject of homosexuality, why doesn't one of our tree-hugging friends ask what their friends the muslims have to say about man love?


Back on topic though, if the press has caused unnecessary outrage in proportion to the facts, then they should cover the costs of any protection necessary. Maxine Carr did her crime and served her time. Her mother will do so too. They were not the murderers in this case.

Ian Huntley is the one who should never see the outside world again (at the very least).

Suresh

The Guv'nor

We would've done but the bloke in the B&B kicked us out!

T.G.

OllyK

So I condone, racism, rape, murder and so on as well do because everybody else has to fend for themself??? I don't condone mob rule, directly or indirectly full stop.

Where did I say mob rule was OK, stop mis-quoting me or back up your accusations with some evidence.

That sentence is an oxymoron. If we are civilised then she won't get attacked. If we are un-civilised then she may.

I also happen to think that people being mugged is not right, are you going to provide everybody with thier own body guard to keep them safe??

I ask again, why is she a special case. If there is evidence to suggest that she may be in danger then protect her, investigate. Arrest those involved, put them on trial and send Carr on her way again. If there is no evidence or threat then stop providing the protection.

Where did I say that exactly?? Where did I say people suffering racism should have to move?? Please stop selecting partial sentences and quoting them out of context to try and make a point. I said:
"If she feels threatened then she needs to do what she needs to, move, report it etc etc"

Move was 1 option, there was also "report it" and 2 etc's suggesting there are other alternatives as well, I just couldn't be bothered to sit there and list them.

Gee talk about selective reading

Sith

Gee you guys, the amount of beer and popcorn I consume with these threads is going to make me fat.

Da da da da - News just in, I am fat apparently. Too late.

Sits back with another beer and crisps. Jerry jerry jerry.........

The Guv'nor

Aaaaaahhhh! Fat people- we haven't ripped the **** out of them for a while!!

T.G.

EddScott

PMSL

Sith

Luckily though I have a gym routine and am losing weight. :

The Guv'nor

And does Jim Rooting give you a good working out?!!!

T.G.

tiggers

No I would hope you don't and I didn't say that did I? The difference here is that there is a very strong likelihood that mob rule will ensue unless she is protected from it whereas your examples whilst valid are far less likely to happen to the average person.

I haven't quoted you - I have drawn a conclusion from your quotes - there is a difference. I also haven't said you support mob rule.

I and many others including the authorities believe she will be attacked if left to fend for herself. Therefore we the taxpayer have to pay for that not to happen. I think that is right - you don't. Therefore you either don't think she will be attacked or do think she will be attacked, but are not prepared to pay for it not to happen. If it's the latter you are then indirectly happy for her to carry on paying for her crimes for as long as the mob hound her.

Unfortunately we live in a society that is both civilised and uncivilised. We as in the general populous want to maintain law and order, but at the same time there will always be an uncivilised element that will take matters in to their own hands because they feel justice has not been done and our society accepts that will be the case.

Maxine Carr is a special case because the authorities believe that there is evidence that she may be in danger and if you read the tabloids, listen to 'man down the pub' or just read some of the replies on threads such as this I think they're probably right.

The mugging analogy doesn't work unless there is a special reason why someone is much more likely to get mugged than soemone else (excluding the obvious comparison that a little old lady is more likely to get mugged than a karate expert ).

Apologies if I took that out of context. It just seemed from the way I read the paragraph that someone should just be prepared to up and move at the drop of a hat if they are suffering at the hands of racists etc. (amongst other options obviously). Problem is thinking about it I see what you're getting at as in both the cases of someone suffering racial abuse or Maxine Carr in an ideal work it is the mob that need sorting out not the victim, but that's not always the sensible option.

Trouble is in the case of someone like Maxine Carr by the time the police sort them out it will probably be too late.

Again please accept my apologies if I have misunderstood you - I am not always the best at deciphering these posts

tiggers.

The Guv'nor

Awwww Tiggers, you've made the post all serious again!

T.G.

tiggers

Sorry mate - bibble bibble - does that help?

The Guv'nor

Much oogle boogle better! Did you get your suspension sorted eventually?

T.G.

tiggers

It's better, but not much. Looking at a full suspension replacment I think - at TSL or the likes - just need to find the time (says he who just posted one of the longest replies on SN - )

Cheers,

tiggers.

Diablo

She lied, she knew (or ought to have known) the seriousness of the matter, therefore she should accept the consequences.

If those consequences include being hounded for the rest of her days, then so be it. I for one don't want to have to meet the costs of protecting a criminal.

If any of you were in a position where your partner was accused of an horrendous crime and you lied for them, you would be aware of the consequences. I would probably do the same thing (if I believed or wanted to believe) that my partner was innocent and being victimised. But I would be aware of the consequences of my actions, and I would have to live with them.

Agreed, her crime was not *that* serious (although it could have been if someone elses child had been attacked by Ian Huntley in the intervening period).

Running a key down someone's car door is, by comparison, not that serious but would result in a public hanging on this BBS

Go figure

The Guv'nor

But this thread shouldn't have anything to do with what Carr did/didn't do, it's about her mother threatening a witness. Something I would also do if ut was necessary to protect one of my kids.

T.G.

OllyK

I think you are speculating, please provide the evidence that you are using to deduce that she is at a high risk of being attacked. On a 1 for 1 basis, I agree she MAY be at an increased risk. But I think that there is far more chance of there being A rape tonight than there would be of MC being mobbed.

To quote Mr Spock "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one". I would rather see her protection money put towards protecting kids, or helping rape victims etc etc.

I beg to differ:
Unless you are saying you actually mean "You have not indirectly condoned them by the fact you think it's OK for her to fend for herself"

And so are countless other people, and they have done absolutely nothing and are often unknown to their attacker. Why should they not be afforded the same if not better protection???

I don't know - I don't have a crystal ball. I think it is a possibility. I also think that a driver who has an accident and kills somebody is at a higher risk of being assaulted by the familiy of the deceased than Mr Average, but I don;t think should be protected either unless there is a specific threat made against them, and only then until that threat has been dealt with.

You are jumping to conclusions. I don't want to see her assaulted, but I don't want to see tax payers money wasted when there is no specific threat.

You really think society as a whole accepts it?? Please provide your evidence to back this up. The results of a survey will surfice.

"believe", "may" - that isn't very certain is it?? The government were rather more certain than that about WMD in Iraq and look how wrong they were there. So what real, evidence is there?? Let's see the death threats and so on. If there were any the Police would no doubt be investigating the matter. You are basing your assessment of "risk" on "pub talk". There is a lot of bravado and bull**** spouted over a few pints, how much of what you hear down the pub do you believe??

I am sure the crime statistics will tell us who are the most likey to be mugged. White middle class females I would guess. So maybe we just provide body guards for them then?? Then somebody else becomes the highest risk and we need to address them.

Appology accepted, I just get rather defensive when I feel my words are beign twisted to make me look like some kind of homophobic, racist bigot.

Dealing with the Mob is very much the sensible, and right option. Once a criminal has served their time, they should be able to walk free, not couped up (MC HAS been moved anyway - think about it!).

Very true, the same applies to every victim of crime though, by the time it is reported to the police, the crime has happened. So again would we not be better to try and stop the crime by effective Policing, otherwise we are seen to be giving people already percieved as not having suffered enough and higher status than average citizens by providing them with 24 hour protection.

I appreciate this is a case of perception to a degree, just to me, that by making a special case of her, it inflames the situation even more. If she had just left and kept her head down for a while, and stuck it out, she may have had a bit of hassle, but give it 12 months and it would all have died down. By making the big issue and threatening papers with big fines, it just ensure that it keeps it all in the public eye. I just personally think it is counter productive and very expensive.

OllyK

Think I have just taken that title off you