June 24th, 2011

Milly Dowler’s Family Call for “A Life for A Life”

Milly Dowler’s mother Sally says:

“The lengths to protect his human rights have seemed so unfair compared to what we as a family have had to endure. I hope that whilst he is in prison, he is treated with the same brutality he dealt out to his victim and that his life is a living hell. For a mother to bury their child in any circumstance is truly agonising, but to bury your child when you know she died in such an appallingly awful way is terrible.”

Milly’s sister Gemma put it succinctly and powerfully, the family won’t have seen justice without:

“An eye for an eye, a life for a life…”

A call for justice which has majority support in the country, but unfortunately not in parliament.

The political class complains that the public is disengaged, could that be in part because there are a number of issues where the political class refuses to carry out the wishes of the people. All polls since 1965 when hanging was abolished show that there is majority support for capital punishment, yet there is no majority for it in parliament. It is not even an issue for parliamentarians even though the incidence of homicide is higher now than it was before the abolition of hanging. The coalition has promised that there will be e-petitions legislation before the end of this year. If it passes Guido will put all the resources at his command into a campaign for a vote on the restoration of capital punishment for child and cop killers. Even if we don’t win the vote on the floor of the House, we shall at least see which MPs believe salus populi suprema est lex, and those that put the welfare of child killers above the wider community. Bring it on…


434 Comments

  1. 1
    Billy Bowden is the greatest umpire ever ! says:

    Not sure Guido, Only if 100% accurate.

    Like

    • 52
      geoff says:

      this gypsy bastard should hang

      Like

      • 162
        Lord Lucan says:

        public castration

        Like

        • 189
          David Laws Lib Dem fiddler says:

          Execution will help Clark’s budget. it serves no useful purpose to imprison him at huge cost, he will never be of any use to society. Guido, I agree people like this need to go. Obama did it with bin Laden without a trial.

          Need to scrap the Human and equal rights rubbish as well. Otherwise the case will go on forever. The judges would die before the offender!

          Like

          • Iloathlefties says:

            The politicians won’t allow the public a say. How dare the little people seek to presume they know better than their elected masters who are actually run by the EU. There will be a law or directive prohibiting this from the EU somewhere!! Referendum to get us out of the EU NOW!!!!

            Like

          • Penfold says:

            It’s never going to happen, as our masters in Brussels won’t allow us to bring back capital punishment.
            So any campaign will need to double headed, advocating exit from the EU and the re-imposition of the death penalty.

            Like

          • only me says:

            Just listen to yourselves.

            But I suppose thats what you do!

            Hard cases = Bad Laws. We all know that.

            Try to be respectful to the bereaved.
            Stop the media circus

            Like

          • Anonymous says:

            Do you really want the likes of David Laws pronouncing on what is right and wrong?

            Like

        • 346
          ManNotNumber says:

          Stefan Kiskow

          Like

      • 202
        Editor says:

        If it were my daughter, I would do the utmost to find out what prison he was in, wait outside on visitors day and look for a “scrubber” who is probably married to a real tough guy and accost her with £100 quid and tell her that when this guy “gets it” there’s be another £900 quid to follow.

        It would me worth getting a few years nick as that satisfaction would make the time go very quickly.

        Like

      • 318
        Hang The Bastards says:

        All gypsies should hang

        Like

      • 387
        Anonymous says:

        Not sure if we could get the noose round the fat c unts neck as he hasnt got one !

        Like

        • 423
          laughing hangman says:

          Just need a shorter drop, nice fat and flabby neck, just pull the noose until it’s tight, even tighter at the end of the drop.

          Like

    • 171
      John Adlington says:

      Actually you can delete that one if you like, it was a bit nasty and I apologise

      Like

    • 185
      Ed the Axeman says:

      I’m all for hanging – with one condition.

      If the person hanged is subsequently found innocent, then the judges, the jury and the prosecution should be executed for the killing of an innocent person.

      Like

      • 192

        No sooner is the murderous wife beating father of 11 sentenced to never be released do other “Libertarians” demand the reintroduction of the State death penalty.

        To hand the 650 corrupt, spiteful, vindictive law making Politicians in OUR Parliament the power of execution over us, the citizens, is frankly beyond my comprehension

        Murder is a vile crime, the murder of a teenage girl even more disgusting and there are plenty of people on my shit list (not least the QC who took such delight in destroying the family of Millie Dowler that he even links to it on his website) but to hand “lawful murder” to those who rule us?

        The answer of course, is simple. Allow us to defend ourselves. With lethal force whilst taking the consequences. Manners improve dramatically when you relaise the person you are squaring up to and planning to stab for asking you not to throw chips at other passengers on the bus may well be the last person you ever bully.

        Don’t hand the power of life and death back to those who took ours away. Vengence is NOT justice.

        Like

        • 207
          Rowley Birkin QC says:

          I agree, but then I’m very very druunk

          Like

        • 254

          Personally I favour having a giant cheesegrater set up at Tyburn.

          Like

          • W.W. says:

            I wouldn’t hang the bastard, as tempting as it is.

            But I would ensure the next forty years he spends in prison is such a god awful experience for him, that he would wake up every day wishing he was dead.

            Hanging is to quick for the likes of this scum.

            However he is more than likely to have his own TV, internet access and probably even a playstation, be nice and warm and have three good meals a day.

            W.W.

            Like

        • 258
          Sir William Waad says:

          If I were Milly’s father I would want Bellfield to be hanged, too. But I would still be wrong. The death penalty doesn’t deter potential murderers – there is plenty of evidence of this from the USA – and it lowers us to their level.

          Like

          • Sir William shoots his Waad in the foot says:

            Sir William please stop spouting this shite about it not being a deterent in America. the reason it isnt is down to the fact they hardly ever use it. fucks sake man get a grip on your reasoning.

            Like

          • A Pensioner says:

            It may not deter, but it stops re-offending 100%.

            Like

          • Pierrepoint says:

            A young man has a lower life expectance on the streets of South Central LA than on Death Row.

            Like

          • That's News says:

            There was an interview with a man on death row. He was asked why the fact that there was a death penalty had not deterred him from murdering someone. His reply was: “I was so angry when I killed him that I only thought about the death penalty after I had murdered him, not before.”

            Like

        • 260
          Mr Cheesecake says:

          Vengence is NOT justice. < This

          Like

        • 277
          There's always someone bigger says:

          Allowing those can defend themselves to do so would be a change for the better but there also has to be state protection of those who are unable to defend themselves. It’s one of the legitimate functions of any government.

          To be frank, having seen pictures of Mr OH I don’t think he’d prosper under law of the jungle conditions.

          Like

        • 355
          Anonymous says:

          Quite right. I don’t want the state to have the power legally to murder me, whatever the circumstances.

          Like

        • 411
          dontwastemymoney says:

          “The answer of course, is simple. Allow us to defend ourselves.”

          How the fuck does a 13 year old school-girl defend herself against a monster like him? The parents would have to do the “defending” but it’s a bit fucking late to “defend” her after she had been snatched off the streets on her walk home from the station. So it stands to reason the parents will have to hand out an equivalent “force” in place of the defending, but retrospectively – ie hang the sick fucker if they so desire.

          Like

      • 205
        Editor says:

        The police say that there is no such thing as an innocent person, so that’d be OK then.

        Like

      • 420
        Anonymous says:

        Does anyone remember the Birmingham Six. Who here thinks they should have been hanged?

        Like

    • 204
      Ropeman says:

      Very noble TOSH-of course there are some crimes which deserve the ultimate sanction.As for your “100%” clause-we already have it.It’s called DNA.

      Like

    • 221
      Gordon Brown says:

      Today I am a custard cream

      Like

    • 233
      Anonymous says:

      So all you who think we should only have capital punishment if we have a perfect justice system are prepared to sacrifice the hundreds of innocents murdered every year who would otherwise have lived all to avoid the outside possibility that a few miscarragies may occur in several decades. In other words 100 should die to prevent 1 miscarraige.
      What a stupid evil morality you have.
      Shame on you.
      Bellfield should Hang, evil murdering child abusing Bastard !!!!!

      Like

      • 236
        The peoples hangman says:

        Statistically you have a vastly greater chance of being murdered under our present system than anyone would have of being hung by mistake even with an imperfect system employing capital punishment. Why anyone thinks the present system is better or safer for anyone is quite beyond me.

        Like

      • 312
        Iloathlefties says:

        Tortured first and then a lethal injection or electricution.

        Like

      • 430
        BobRoberts says:

        Well. Not really. If they would have been hung under a capital punishment system, they would have been locked up already under the current system. So all it will save are people killed by released offenders who would have been hung. If the offense was serious enough to get you hung then you wouldn’t be getting out of prison in any state to repeat the offense.

        Satisfying as hanging may sound, I don’t see that it’s going to prevent many crimes. Additionally I fear police, judges or, god forbid, those numpties in parliament having the power of life and death over us… they can’t even get their freaking expenses right – I don’t want them killing me on a whim!

        A few misscarriges of justice are fine until it’s you or your friends who are wrongfully tried?

        I still recall the Barry George/Jill Dando debacle – dead celebrity, high profile case with no good leads – frame a weirdo. Yay. I wouldn’t want to sit next to him on the bus, but he didn’t deserve to die for it.

        Not to say things are right under the current justice system, but I’d rather sort that out the problems with it than throwing worse consequences in for when it goes wrong.

        Like

    • 259
      Another anonymous says:

      State execution? No thanks.

      Like

    • 279
      Ropeman says:

      I can say in 2 wirds all thats wrong with the Criminal justices system in 2 words-Liberal Democrats-these are the ones who continualy bleat abiut Human Rights-but oh no, its not the rights of the murdered and bereaved who are to be dragged through the court.Nothing for the victims or their families-just the rush to let them out so they can do it all over again.How many more victims have to be martyred to hooman rites???

      Like

    • 338

      I’m confused! Why is the killing of a particular-type-of-State-employee, such as a “cop”, or indeed a child (are children now a particularly valuable form of state property?) worse then the killing of a generalised human being?

      Like

      • 340

        I’m not saying the death penalty ought not to be restored: merely that the proposed strategy will set up two classes of individuals – those whose murder warrants a State-commended-death, and those whose murder does not. I do not think that is very libertarian, Guido old man…what are your thoughts?

        Like

    • 406
      M'Learned Friend's Friend says:

      Too right. And how about caning for buggery and cutting off hands for writing a load of crap too. There’s a whole lot of other lovely punishments that I’m sure the educated contributors can suggest though they might have spelling problems with some of them

      Like

  2. 2
    Anonymous says:

    Bit difficult to address miscarriage of justice once you’ve hanged someone

    Like

    • 78
      Postlethwaite says:

      Like Shipman you mean?

      Like

    • 240
      The peoples hangman says:

      Even more Difficult to bring back the hundreds who are murdered in the absence of Capital punishment. But you dont shed tears from them oh no your false morality only weeps buckets for the few and not the many.

      Like

      • 261
        Sir William Waad says:

        Evidence from the USA shows that the abolition or re-introduction of the death penalty has no effect on murder rates. Murderers do not think like you or me.

        Like

        • 299
          Arcadian says:

          It’s probably true that the death penalty doesn’t function as a deterrent. But that’s fine – if it doesn’t work as a deterrent it will work as a method of punishment.
          What would be interesting is to know how many murders/other crimes are prevented by armed citizens shooting the perps (so to speak).

          Like

      • 262
        Another anonymous says:

        Yeah because there were no murders when we had hanging in the UK. Oh and the US with their electric chairs and lethal injections has never had a single murder ever.

        I see your point.

        Like

        • 290
          Dancing with idiots says:

          Oh for fucks sake what stupidity is on display here where do we start.
          Ok well there were far far far fewer murders when we had capital punishment and even then imagine how worse the murder rate would be now without the medical advances since abolition. The murder rates would be even bigger when compared to the early 1960s.
          As for America, very few people are executed indeed the life expectancy on Death row is greater than for a young male in some of the rougher area of American cities.

          Listen idiot, no one is saying that capital punishment will lead to no murders, but it will mean far fewer and possibly several hundred or thousands could have been prevented since its abolition.

          Like

          • Another anonymous says:

            Can I borrow your crystal ball you fucking cock monkey? Euromillions is huge tonight.

            It was a completely different society when we had capital punishment. Perhaps that was why we had fewer murders, eh genius? I’m sure that murderers nowadays think, I will kill today because I won’t be hanged if I get caught, just banged up for the best part of the rest of my life.

            Like

          • Anonymous says:

            You are absolutely correct it was a different Society than, one in which the life of a victim was held in higher regard than that of the murderer.

            Like

          • Nonsense says:

            Yawn

            Like

      • 265
        Another anonymous says:

        Although that said, I would have no objections to that fucking animal being placed in the general prison population to take his chances – no nonce wing sanctuary. But no state execution. I simply can’t trust the state with such an ultimate sanction at their disposal.

        Like

        • 332
          Old Style Copper says:

          But you already do. We allow armed police to kill people on their own initiat ive having satisfied themselves that certain criteria have been met. We allow them to do this even when there is demonstrably little or no risk to themselves or others as in the case of that fucking loony Moat and more regretably, that lawyer chap with the shotgun in London. Now I personally don’t have a problem with the police shooting people dead, 99% of the time the bastards richly deserve it, but let’s not kid ourselves that we can’t have Capital Punishment because we can’t trust the courts to judge who’s innocent and guilty. I’d rather take my chances in front of a Judge and jury than SO19!

          Like

        • 384
          Anonymous says:

          You pay for it then, as for me I think my money would be better placed financing something else.

          Like

    • 313
      purpleline says:

      Until we get the restoration of the death penalty I would use his body for science, have all new drug treatments, new operations anything experimental done on his person. Preferably without any pain killers.

      Like

    • 315
      The Arbitrator says:

      OK, sentence to be served in Stafford Hospital. Everyone happy?

      Like

      • 325
        Rufus T. Firefly says:

        It should have been a suspended sentence, 6 months suspended by the neck should do it.

        Like

    • 331
      Stan Stedd says:

      It cuts down on the repeat offending though

      Like

  3. 3
    John Adlington says:

    Asking the Home Secretary so say “Go on, kill the bastard” is hardly fair on a person.

    Like

    • 37
      Wavvey Davey says:

      Ken Clarke would probably take him out for a burger and chips and ask if he could be a nice guy in future

      Like

      • 57
        geoff says:

        I would reserve capital punishment for the most serious offences

        1) crime
        2) anti-social behaviour

        for parking infringements I would only use for the first offence

        Like

        • 82
          John Adlington says:

          Actually, I recant: allow the death penalty for murder and allow hearsay evidence and double jeopardy to boot!

          Imagine the piquancy of the clock striking 6am

          Like

  4. 4
    Billy Bowden is the greatest umpire ever ! says:

    There is a difference between vengence and justice.

    Someone once said “I would rather 100 guity men go free than 1 innocent man banged up” (well words to that effect), How many times do we have see miscarries of justice to relise that giving the state the right to murder you makes no better than communist countreis(Yes i know the Yanks have death pen), You say Guido that it would only apply to cop killers and child killers, You are saying that some lives are more important than others? If you want the death pen for murder then it should be all murder as all lives are equal under the law.

    Like

    • 11
      Kevin T says:

      “I would rather 100 guity men go free than 1 innocent man banged up”

      Sounds very noble but practically, given re-offending rates, by doing that you’re guaranteeing most of those 100 men will kill, rape, assault and otherwise victimise other innocent people just so 1 innocent man doesn’t do time.

      Like

      • 16
        Billy Bowden is the greatest umpire ever ! says:

        Most on here moan about the abuse of state power by the executive, Guido now wants to the state the right to murder people.

        As i said there is a difference between vengence and justice.

        Like

        • 27

          Lawful, judicial execution according to the law, not the will of the executive.

          Like

          • Billy Bowden is the greatest umpire ever ! says:

            But we do not have a fool-proof system, We all know some police are coruppt and “fit ups” have been known to occur, Do we really want innocent people killed then have to pay compo and apologise to know that miscarriges of justice happen.

            Like

          • Anonymous says:

            Wasn’t the last government executing innocent people anyway? We might as well kill off a few guilty ones as well.

            Like

          • Just Asking says:

            the executive are above the law as we know to our cost in recent years

            the judiciary are not exactly covered in glory

            so what gives these people any rights over anyone?

            Like

          • smoggie says:

            Innocent people are killed every day.

            By people who are not concerned by the present deterrent.

            Like

          • and who makes the laws? You REALLY want to give the power of execution to the 650 idiots running Parliament? Jesus wept.

            Like

          • smoggie says:

            Parliament provides the tools. The judiciary implements them.

            Like

          • Engineer says:

            Tools can be misused, through incompetence or malice.

            Like

        • 38
          John Adlington says:

          We have also recently gotten rid of the principle that once found not guilty of a crime you can never again be tried for the same crime. What is there to stop the state coming back again and again until they have you looking up a rope.

          Don’t get me wrong, old Levi deserves to die but let’s not have the state killing people.

          Like

          • Sir Reginald Titbrain [Decd.] says:

            Does this mean we can hang him twice? Sounds like a good idea to me.

            Like

        • 40
          Kevin T says:

          I don’t see a contradiction. Justice should include at least an element of vengeance. The victim should have the satisfaction of seeing their assailant punished. Part of the function of the justice system is so the victim or their family doesn’t deal with things themselves. If we’re to delegate that to the state then the state has to be prepared to take revenge for us. If a close relative of mine is raped at knifepoint and the state decides the rapist just needs care and help, explain why I should not take a bat to his head.

          Like

          • Anonymous says:

            Imagine if we executed murdering rapists, we’d then be in the position of that bird from Radio 5 and all her cronies arguing for us to be more lenient to rapists. Oh the irony.

            Like

      • 54
        Anonymous says:

        But what if that innocent man was you?

        Like

        • 130
          Archer Karcher says:

          What if is not an argument either for or against, sorry.

          Like

        • 257
          The peoples hangman says:

          What if you or one of your children are the next person murdered , much greater possibility of that than even being that one miscarraige. There will probably be around a dozen or so murders this weekend alone , but according to you thats preferrable to the possibility of a few miscarraiges over a few decades.

          Like

          • The peoples hangman says:

            Another way to look at it and see how preposterous the anti capital punishment cause an innocent man could hang argument is , is by considering a country waging war. Now most people would accept that where there is just cause then it is sonetimes right for a nation to go to war even when there is no doubt that innocents will be killed in the process. It is believed that a greater evil is defeated in the process.
            Waging war on Hitler cost millions of lives but most agree that to have done nothing would have resulted in greater loss of life. The death toll of the death camps were believed to be in the millions, just imagine what could have been achieved if they had been given a free run.
            Now unless you are a pacifist or believe that life should not be taken under any circumstances then to be on

            Like

          • The peoples hangman says:

            Then to be of the view that we cant execute murderers to deter many more murders because an innocent may be hung is just the same moral argument as saying we shud never go to war under ANY circumstances as innocent lives will be lost.
            Also do not give me the nonsense about America having the death penalty blah blah blah.
            It may have it but it hardly ever uses it thus its deterent value is more or less non existent.

            Like

          • Another anonymous says:

            Straw man argument there Hangman. State execution of its own citizens is not the same as killing the enemy in a war.

            Like

          • The Peoples hangman says:

            Whats the difference ?

            Like

          • The peoples hangman says:

            Another Anonymous, You have completely missed the point of my argument.
            Let me draw diagrams for you.
            The arguments on here against capital Punishment broadly fall into 3 catagories namely
            1. The state should not be trusted with Capital punishment
            2. it is not a deterent
            3. Miscarraiges of justice

            My comments above were addressed to point 3 which is essentially an argument of “risk” ie if we were to introduce Capital punishment then there is a “risk” that an innocent man/woman would hang.
            That is true as no system of justice is perfect. However my argument is that there is a greater “risk” in innocent deaths by not having it as evidenced by the number of murders we have every single day.
            Essentially the risk of you or me or someone we know being hung by mistake are insignificant when compared to the far greater risks we now face of being murdered. I wold feel safer living with the smaller risk Im sure most others would to.
            The analogy with war was to show that the presence of “Risk” or in that case absolute certainty of innocent deaths does not prevent most people not just the state, from believing that War is sometimes justified, so why not Capital punishment?

            As for points 1 and 2

            The alternative of handing the power of punishment over to the State is mob rule or some airy fairy la la land existence as proposed by Old Holborn. By the way I thought he was retiring to a self sufficient tax free paradise. How is it coming along ?

            Compare the murder and attempted murder rates now with those when capital punishment for murder was the order of the day and tell me there is no deterent.
            America doesnt employ capital punishment so using it in arguments of deterent are misplaced.

            Like

          • Another anonymous says:

            You really expect me to waste my time answering that?

            Like

          • Another anonymous says:

            That was in response your “what’s the difference comment”.

            Anyway maybe the US doesn’t execute ‘that many’ overall but it is still a sanction available and does not act as a deterrent. No murderer is to know if they are going to one of the executed or not.

            Like

    • 47
      Charles says:

      It’s perverse that rule applies to the judicial system when the State, and most of us are quite happy to kill that man again and again.

      The risk of innocent death is something we live with and accept every day.

      Get into a car – turn that key, a freedom paid for in the blood of hundreds every year, okay not 1 in a 100 but IIRC 1 in1 18,000 journeys.

      Do we abolish the right to drive to save those innocents?

      IN the same way any major construction project is expected to kill people, the channel tunnel was built with blood.

      We as a collective – society – kill all the time

      Like

      • 187
        Engineer says:

        One correction – construction projects are not expected to kill people. Any fatality or serious injury are regarded as serious failings of good practice, and employers are frequently prosecuted for allowing those failings.

        The general principle in the construction industry these days is that the acceptable number of injuries at work is zero.

        Like

        • 274
          The peoples hangman says:

          And the legal system is designed to prevent miscaraiges of Justice , those who circumvent or attempt to circumvent the strict Laws and proceedures are subject to serious santions themselves.
          As with the Construction industry the acceptable number of miscarraiges is zero, but as with the construction industry they may sadly still happen and as no one seriously calls for the abolition of construction, neither should they oppose the death penalty.

          Like

    • 248
      The peoples hangman says:

      Billy is it better that someone kills rapes and kills your wife and children so we can all come out with platitudes like that spouted by some Lawyer.
      To that I say is it fuck better that 100 guilty men go free.
      What a load of bollox, putting it another way its the same as saying its better that 100 miscarraiges of Justice occur and the resultant re offending that inevitably follows than 1 miscarraige of justice should occur !!!
      I believe it was Lord Denning who uttered this pish.

      Like

      • 266
        Billy Bowden is the greatest umpire ever ! says:

        I dont have a wife or children, But because someone else murders the state should stoop to thier level?

        Like

        • 276
          The peoples hangman says:

          Because someone kidnaps someone else should the state “stoop” to their level be imprisoning them ? Your train of thought is bizare to say the least.

          Like

          • Billy Bowden is the greatest umpire ever ! says:

            Nope because the state isnt kidnapping them ( Thats extraodinry redidtion).

            If my partner is raped should the state rape the guilty person as revenge?

            Like

          • The peoples hangman says:

            Billy you miss the finer points of your stupidity. the acts of arrest and imprisonment if carried out by someone acting without the authority of the law are viewed as assault and abduction.
            The state can perform these same acts because the law legitamises them
            Capital punishment if legitamised by law is not Murder and is not the same as the actions of a murderer.
            It is a spurious argument to say that someone who is found guilty of murder after due process, trail, jury etc and is then executed is somehow equivalent to the actions of liam Bellfield. such an argument turns my stomach.

            Like

          • Billy Bowden is the greatest umpire ever ! says:

            Vengence is not justice.

            http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.com/2011/06/vengence-is-not-justice.html

            Like

          • Anonymous says:

            who says it isnt ?

            Like

  5. 5
    Graham Ward says:

    An eye for an eye is prehistoric. A life for a life would lower us to Bellfield’s level. Thou shalt not kill applies to us all.

    Like

    • 60
      geoff says:

      not in cases of self-defence which killing this vermin surely is

      Like

    • 66
      Richard Dawkins says:

      Thou shalt not get very far among the loons on this blog quoting scripture…

      Like

      • 148
        Archer Karcher says:

        Err, your statement displays your elitist arrogance in all it’s fetid glory.
        As the majority of this country are resolutely for the death penalty, even after thirty years of constant leftist brain washing that it is a ‘bad thing’.
        Are you suggesting that a majority of your fellow country men and women are all loons and you are the only bastion of sanity?

        Like

    • 280
      The peoples hangman says:

      Oh here we go, the thou shall not kill argument. Have you ever actually read the book of exodus ? If you did you would see that the killing refered to is defined as murder, further the verses go on to say that those who should break this commandment should be errrrr put to death ! Therby clearly showing that this commandment is not talking about killing under any circumstances.
      Note I am NOT using an ancient book to justify Capital pu ishment but rather showing that those who quote it to claim it forbids capital punishment , no doubt to appear all sanctimonious, are talking out of their arse.

      Like

  6. 6
    public opinion says:

    Bring it on Guido, this bastard should be released into the care of the Dowler family…

    Like

  7. 7
    stefan cizkos testicle says:

    The british police are the best in the world and I trust everything they do.

    Like

    • 70
      Backwoodsman says:

      Thats the problem. A reli who is your classic sensible right wing grandmother, has been a JP for many many years. She absolutely despises the police – in her experience on the Bench , they couldn’t even lie straight in bed at night.

      Like

      • 129
        Fenrir says:

        My dad who was also a JP and a member of the Police Committee was of similar mind, he worked very closely with them and grew to distrust them completely.

        Like

        • 156
          Archer Karcher says:

          Then why do they not do the honourable thing and resign and tell the wider public why?
          Oh yeah, those imaginary relatives can’t.

          Like

        • 282
          Anonymous says:

          Still I bet your snooty right wing grandmother would still be on the phone for the Police when someone like LIam Bellfield was breaking into her house. Please keep a sense of proportion with your girlie hystetical rants.

          Like

    • 83
      All police a pigs says:

      “capital punishment for child and cop killers”

      And, of course, killer cops.

      Like

      • 161
        Archer Karcher says:

        Absolutely, if a police man or woman is convicted of murder, then they should be bound by the same rules.

        Like

        • 283
          Archer Fuckwit says:

          Who says they aren’t ?? What the fuck are you talking about ? Can you give me one exampe of a Policeman being convicted of murder and not being treated as anyone else ? I really do hope you can otherwise I would have to deduce that you are talking out if your arse.

          Like

      • 200

        How long do you think it would be before “Politicians” was added to the list of those “who must not die”?

        Like

  8. 8
    number6 says:

    Bring it back – regardless.
    However, getting it past our Euro masters will be impossible as it is been decreed illegal. This means that for this campaign to succeed, we will need to leave the EU.
    Now that really is a fight worth winning.

    Like

    • 15
      Kevin T says:

      I agree, Guido if you’re reading this I agree with you but priority 1 for all your resources has to be a referendum on the EU.

      Like

    • 87
      John Adlington says:

      Leaving the EU for our right to hang people!

      I can think of many more compelling arguments.

      Like

  9. 9
    The Voice of experience Speaks says:

    Like

    • 31
      Onwards and upwards says:

      Still Climbing the Greasy pole then Luciana?

      Like

      • 62
        geoff says:

        why bring Dennis MacShane into this?

        Like

        • 99
          In The Know says:

          still waiting for a decision on whether the police bring charges – it always takes years to find the evidence in these cases – unlike other crimes we hear of – he was on the list of parliamentary hearings but it has been delayed waiting police intervention

          Like

      • 410
        Archie says:

        No, she dumped it!

        Like

    • 63
      St Vincent says:

      Grovelling will get you everywhere.

      Like

    • 101
      Mornington Crescent says:

      Got your sights set on Ed now, have we?

      Before “taking on the government”, perhaps you should try… oooh, I dunno… putting together some policies of your own.

      Like

    • 203

      It’s not who votes Luciana, it’s who counts the votes. Remember?

      Like

    • 213
      Grumpy Old Man says:

      A Strumpet speaks, and having spoken moves on – to the next trick.

      Like

      • 256
        Peter Carter-Fuck says:

        Luciana’s working at the parliamentary escort agency tonight, but book early chaps, as she wants to watch U2 at Glastonbury. All the usual stuff for £100 an hour, can’t say fairer than that. Be warned, now that Chuka’s not fulfilling her needs she’s well up for it, a blue pill may well be a good idea. Please note, Luciana does not like jokes about climbing greasy poles, so keep your mouth shut whilst she does the work, you’ll find she’s worth it.

        Like

  10. 10
    Ken Clarke says:

    Will the sentence be halved if they plead Guilty?

    Like

  11. 12
    Rob586 says:

    Since when did the fact that the majority of people hold an opinion make it right?

    100 years ago the majority of British people thought black people were inferior. Not so long ago they thought homosexuality was an abomination.

    If people feel that strongly about their parliamentarians not backing capital punishment, they are free to vote for people who do.

    Of course, that would leave them able to vote only for fringe lunatics.

    Like

    • 33
      Paris Claims says:

      Some people still hold those views.

      Like

    • 39
      Job says:

      Nothing much has changed over the last 100 years.

      Like

      • 46
        keddaw says:

        I’m not allowed a gun, that’s changed.

        Like

        • 93
          Engineer says:

          Not quite true. The police must demonstrate good reason to withold a shotgun certificate from you, though to hold a firearms licence, and thus a rifle, you must demonstrate good reason to own one.

          I accept that those rules are far more stringent than in most jurisdictions, though.

          Like

          • Postlethwaite says:

            You are clearly a gun club member of long standing and have lived at the same address for more than five years.

            And yes they must demonstrate good reason, but that is after you prove you have good reason to have – such as shooting rights over certain land and landowners approval in writing etc..

            Like

    • 51
      Archer Karcher says:

      It’s the liberal elite who dominate all the main parties that are the fringe lunatics. Your historical comparisons are shit also, homophobia or racism are irrational acts of prejudice towards innocent parties.
      Convicted murderers are not innocent of anything.

      Like

      • 95
        Elsie Chavgasser of the TWG says:

        I think “murder” is a bit too broad. If a vicious dog is attacking a child and I kill that dog with my bare-hands, I’m a hero. If a different type of vicious animal – a chav – is attacking a child and I kill the chav, I’ve got Plod and the CPS on my back.

        Murderers are certainly not innocent, but not all humanoid life should be protected by the law.

        Like

      • 102
        Rob586 says:

        I’m not comparing, i’m using another example to illustrate how attitudes to what is right and wrong are subject to change. That is a good basis for saying that we shouldn’t make laws based on what a majority want, but on what elected parliamentarians bring to the table and vote on.

        You have taken a very selective approach to my point because you want to be right, but it isn’t exactly a fair way to debate the issue.

        Like

        • 178
          Archer Karcher says:

          Cry me a river libtard, how about equating murder with bullying at school or scrumping apples from an orchard?

          Like

          • Rob586 says:

            Again, you’re misrepresenting me. I’m not equating those crimes at all.

            I don’t think that making policy based on the way things make us feel is an intellectually mature way to approach legislation.

            I don’t know why you feel the need to resort to branding me a ‘libtard’. Usually such insult-slinging is a sign that someone isn’t sufficiently confident in their ability to construct a coherent argument.

            Tempting as it is, i shall remain civil.

            Like

    • 285
      Bleedin' Middle Class Self-Loathers says:

      Do you know for a fact that a majority of early 20th century British people thought black people were inferior? When was the opinion poll held? They must have all had a Damascene conversion by 1941 because it is well documented that the British people thought the treatment of black GIs by their white colleagues was disgusting and it caused a great deal of ill-feeling between US troops stationed in the UK and the locals.

      Equally, 18th century juries were notoriously reluctant to pass a guilty verdict on people accused of homosexual acts as it carried the death penalty. Seems they didn’t think it was all that of an abomination, or at least not one worth killing someone for.

      Seems you’re just another middle class twat looking down your nose at those terrible proles. If only everyone could be as clever and open-minded as you, eh? Well, the fact is they’re collectively a lot wiser than you give them credit for.

      Like

      • 378
        Poor Bill says:

        There was a riot in London in which white British troops fought Americans and that was over the treatment of American Blacks on a night out.

        Remember ‘Middle Class Marxists’, the commonwealth and empire was made up mostly of coloured people.

        The then government spent, via the Royal Navy, £2.000.000.000 in todays money, on anti-slavery patrols and raids to rescue British citizens from slavery.

        Thats right, Two Billion £.

        Like

  12. 13
    Anonymous says:

    Given the number of errors that have occurred, and will continue to occur, in the British justice system – NO

    Like

  13. 14
    Not in my name says:

    An eye for an eye “justice” just leaves everyone blind.

    Like

    • 18
      Kevin T says:

      I’d wager there’s more people left blind by assaults from swiftly released (or never jailed) criminals, thanks to “progressive” justice.

      Like

    • 21

      No it doesn’t. Complete and utterly stupid thing to say.

      Like

      • 34
        Rob586 says:

        Not replying to the good points people make? Just going for the easy wins?

        Like

        • 43
          Kevin T says:

          It’s not a good point, it’s just copying and pasting from a book of famous quotations.

          Like

          • Rob586 says:

            Yeah, as i said, NOT replying to the good points. Only to the one here. There are other posters on here with great counter-arguments, but surprisingly little contribution from Mr Fawkes.

            Also, would there be capital punishment for someone who, say, drunkenly got behind the wheel of their car and ended up killing someone?

            http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/pandora/pandora-dave-gets-shirty-over-order-to-undress-818060.html

            Like

          • Archer Karcher says:

            Oh dear, you obviously are an ignorant tool, there is a difference between manslaughter and premeditated murder, that is clearly lost on you.

            Like

          • Rob586 says:

            Archer Karcher – Now why resort to name-calling, that’s just puerile. What you may have falied to spot is that i too was doing something puerile, referring to Mr Fawkes’ own brush with the law in order to show that the line between good citizen and murderer is not as black and white as those who favour capital punishment seem to think.

            Like

          • smoggie says:

            He’s also getting a bit shirty because Guido isn’t responding to his “good points”.

            Hang him !

            Like

        • 126
          Anonymous says:

          If we’re happy enough to have doctors kill innocent unborn babies what’s wrong with killing brutal murderers?

          Like

          • Archer Karcher says:

            Now that is an outrage that our libtard friends find totally acceptable.
            All their collective handringing regarding innocent lives that maybe lost due to wrongful conviction, yet not a word about the millions murdered in the name of ‘right to choose’.

            Like

          • Rob586 says:

            That’s not strictly true now, is it. Those of us who believe in the right to have an abortion are perfectly capable of reconciling what you see as a hypocritical stance.

            Whether you agree or not, my arguments would me many. One of them them is that the life of the mother is of equal importance to the life of the child.

            Another is that, before a certain stage of pregnancy, a foetus isn’t a sentient being. This is a completely separate argument that there’s no use getting into.

            but don’t pretend that your interlocutors don’t have an argument when you know this to be untrue.

            Like

          • smoggie says:

            The convenient and comfortable life of the mother is more important than the life of a defenceless child. It is not “sentient” so it can be snuffed?

            Nice one.

            No wonder you defend child killers.

            Like

          • Rob586 says:

            As i said, it would take a much longer conversation to expand those points and look at all of the implications.

            Still, yes, i like child killers. If its convenient for you to think that, i’m happy for you to do so.

            Like

          • Spare a murderer but kill a baby says:

            Im all for the right of a woman to do as she chooses with her body, its the babies body Im concerned about.

            Like

    • 166
      Victoria Yorkshire says:

      Can’t we update this for 21st century England. What about “a testicle for an eye?” That way nobody goes blind.

      Like

      • 371
        helpful Ahab says:

        This will only apply when we can find enough omen with testicles. On the other hand, what bit should be chopped off women child killers? the head perhaps?

        Like

  14. 17
    Billy Bellend says:

    How about those who are dropping bombs from planes and drones on children in Afghistan and Libya? Should they be strung-up as well?

    Like

    • 68
      Archer Karcher says:

      No, however those who send our soldiers in to these foreign adventures, should be the ones who are legally liable for the consequences of their action.
      Perhaps then politicians would no be so keen on bombing or invading countries, if they knew a rope awaited them, if it was found to be against the law.

      Like

      • 88
        Billy Bellend says:

        “Just obeying orders” is not a defence. All are equally as guilty.

        Like

        • 137
          Postlethwaite says:

          I too would like to see Blair and Bush up for war crimes in the Hague.

          Like

        • 193
          Lurker says:

          When those orders are “torch Orador sur Mare and kill every last person in it” then your point is correct.
          However, simply missing your target and hitting some poor f**ker nearby does not make you a war criminal. No matter how loud Phil Shiner and friends shout it from the pages of the Guardian

          Like

        • 216
          Archer Karcher says:

          Yes you are right, the entire Werhmacht were all executed after the last war. What, they were not? Your grasp of reality is ‘tenuous’ at best.

          Like

          • Lurker says:

            Yeah complete world of my own. It’s Oradour sur Glane. What was I thinking?
            Anyway my point stands. When the orders are to do something that the Waffen SS company did that day, BB is correct. Obeying orders is not a defence.
            When they are “go and capture that town, hill, village” or whatever and some poor civilian gets caught in the crossfire those soldiers are not going to be hauled off to the Hague.

            Like

  15. 19
    Shami Chuckrafarty, Polly Toynbee, Labour councils, Howard League for Penal Reform says:

    Levi Bellfield is the victim here! He’s been treated terribly! He deserves our sympathy!

    Like

    • 24
      Rob586 says:

      High satire indeed…

      Like

      • 74
        Yasmin Allah-Baba-Brown says:

        If we don’t give him an Islamic burial, we are no better than he is.

        Like

        • 121
          Rob586 says:

          Are you one of those people who used to think calling Gordon Brown ‘McBroon’ was hilarious?

          Like

          • Hush, leftie says:

            No. I called him a fucking mong faced c unt. Much funnier. And more accurate.

            Like

          • smoggie says:

            Are you one of those people who thinks he is morally and intellectually superior to everyone else and doesn’t mind who knows it?

            You sound like a bore from student union bar.

            Like

        • 149
          Jabba the Cat says:

          I would be happy to daisycutter him, you and all the other bleeding heart liberals to paradise in one large puff of tnt.

          Like

          • Rob586 says:

            What a nice bunch you are. For the record, my student union bar days are sadly over. I didn’t then, nor do i now, think i’m morally or intellectually superior.

            However, i do think proper argument is superior to mud-slinging. I don’t think that’s a particularly controversial position.

            I love how angry and aggressive you lot are getting. Gives the lie to the stereotype of the loony left and confirms to me that you don’t have an argument, just an opinion.

            Like

          • Rob586 says:

            And for the record, the comment from Hush, leftie is funny. The stuff coming out of Jabba and Archer is just borderline sociopathic.

            Like

          • @Rob586……Don’t you have opinions then? Or is it the intellectually challenged that have them..whereas you have the morally superior ‘argument’?

            Like

  16. 20

    I’ll acquiesce to the restoration of the death penalty if those that actively campaign for it will moffer their lives as hostage to a miscarriage of justice.

    Like

    • 97
      Archer Karcher says:

      Your motivation is clearly one of fear. Of course those who usually are fearful of the law are fearful for good reason..
      To paraphrase Hitchens ‘ there is more chance of a seagull killing me by dropping a turtle on my head as I walk down Oxford Street, than of being wrongly convicted of the murder of a child’.

      Like

      • 195
        Lurker says:

        Stefan Kisko’s family might disagree, (and I’m not an abolitionist)

        Like

        • 220
          Archer Karcher says:

          Stefan Kisco? Wow keep digging, you might find fifty more if you look really hard. How about looking as hard for those who got away, quite literally, with murder and went on to kill again after release?

          Like

          • Lurker says:

            I agree with you, I’m not an abolitionist. I would happily vote yes in a referendum.
            But to say miscarriages don’t happen is simply not correct. Kisco ‘s case was an absolute disgrace and the cops that fitted him up should have done time themselves.

            Like

          • Animal says:

            If someone is acquitted of a crime and goes on to commit another offence that is nothing to do with the sentencing policy – it’s either down to the CPS failing in their duty to secure a conviction or, and this may be shock for you, then they may actually be innocent in the first place.

            The possible sentence they would face is irrelevant if they walk free from court.

            Like

          • Phany Stroaker says:

            A couple of quotes from “The Hangman`s Tale” by Syd Dernley, who was an Assistant at over 20 executions, many of them with Albert Pierrepoint as the man who pushed the lever.

            1. “I never had any doubts that hanging was a deterrent and I believe it still would be. The atmosphere in a prison at the time of an execution was awesome. Here was a building packed with the rowdiest, most undisciplined, violent men in the country and yet there was not a sound to be heard; the silence was eerie. There was a reason they were so quiet; they all knew what was going to happen and they were all frightened. When those great doors went down, sending a boom throughout the prison, they also sent a message, and the message of the gallows went home to the people who needed it most.”

            2. “Wait!” say the abolitionists. “Mistakes can be made, innocent men could go to the gallows!”
            Let us examine this particular suggestion. Let us concede, for the purposes of argument, that every man executed since the war, about whom there is any serious doubt, was innocent, We have Evans, Bentley, Hanratty … one soon runs out of names.
            On the other hand, in the first twenty-two-years after capital punishment was abolished – that is, up to the end of 1987, thirty-seven people were killed by men who had killed before, been convicted of murder or manslaughter, and served terms in prison or special hospital. Now which should be the area of greatest concern?”

            In the meantime, the doubt mentioned by Syd over Hanratty appears to have been tidied away:

            “On 22 March 2001, James Hanratty’s remains were exhumed so that a DNA sample could be taken for analysis. The results showed there was a 2.5 million to one chance that the samples came from someone other than Hanratty. In March 2001, DNA sample extracted from Hanratty’s exhumed body was matched by forensic experts to two samples from the crime scene.”

            So, just two judicial mistakes made between 1945 and 1964, not three!

            I found Quote Nr. 2 to be very interesting, never having come across it before until I read Syd`s book. Are the abolitionists aware of this simple arithmetic or is it way beyond their academic faculties? With all of the safeguards available from modern forensic medicine I just cannot see any more tombstones being engraved with “Hanged by mistake!”.

            So, let`s bring it back in.

            Like

          • Animal says:

            Phany, it’s the simple fact that someone has been put to death ‘in error’ that is the fundamental issue. Stats and arithmetic doesn’t come into it. If just 1 person is wrongly sent to the gallows for a crime they did not commit, that is 1 person too many.

            Like

    • 98
      keddaw says:

      Absolutely.

      When the state fecks up and takes an innocent life how do we square that circle? Life for a life, like you say. Who’s life do we take when that happens? The prosecutor’s? The judge’s? The jury’s?

      The state is just us. We can only kill when another life is at stake so when this animal is banged up he is not a danger and we have no need/right to kill him and, by extension, the state has no need/right to kill him.

      Killing someone who is not an imminent threat is murder. It’s murder when I do it and it’s murder when a bunch of us get together and do it, even if the lynch mob goes by the name “the state”.

      Like

      • 330
        Animal says:

        Leaving aside the puerile insults thrown around there have been some good points made on both sides, but I’d still be against the re-introduction of capital punishment.

        As said above, it is just as wrong for a group of people to decide that killing an individual is acceptable as it is for someone to commit an act of murder in the first place. The danger of wrongful arrest remains too high, there is still too much opportunity for abuse of the system, and the idea that only certain types of murder should be punished by death, as promoted by Fawkes, is just bizarre.

        However, there is a very real inbalance in the treatment of those found guilty for such serious crimes, and I’m minded that if this were properly dealt with then the calls for the death penalty to be back on the statute books would go down markedly. If, for example, sex offenders were requred to be chemically or castrated, which is proven to massively reduce re-offending, then most would view that as a huge improvment in sentencing.

        What is most disturbing, if we look at the case of Levi Bellfield, is why the court allowed the defence to pursue questioning the family of facts that were simply not relevant to the case? The evidence put against the accused was damning and emphatic, yet the sitting judge Mur Justice Wiklie decided to allow Bellfield’s QC to cause huge anguish and pain on the victim’s family, leaving it to the prosecution to object where possible, which was a childish and cowardly act on his behalf.

        The legal system in this country is far from broken, but it certainly has many distinct flaws. It would be more to the Government’s credit if it addressed halfwitted judges and cack-handed sentencing policies, even if they may at times cause howls of indignation from the self-righteous and the bloodthirsty.

        Like

  17. 22
    John77 says:

    Add prison officers – there is currently very little acts as a deterrent to stop long-term prisoners murdering prison officers.
    The pre-abolition system only treated as “Capital Murders” (those for which you could be hanged) the ones where the killer might go out and murder another victim if he was released or escaped.
    The increase in the number of innocent people killed each year during Roy Jenkins suspension of the death penalty, prior to abolition, exceeded the total number of people hanged in the previous four years.

    Like

    • 145
      Steve says:

      ” The pre-abolition system only treated as “Capital Murders” (those for which you could be hanged) the ones where the killer might go out and murder another victim if he was released or escaped ”

      That is simply incorrect. The ONLY permitted sentence for murder was death. Which was then commuted to life imprisonment if appropriate. That is why Life is now the only sentence.

      Like

      • 164
        John77 says:

        Go home and look it up. 1957 Homicide Act
        Burglars refused to go out with anyone carrying a gun because you could be hanged for shooting someone (actually they could be hanged for murdering someone in the course of a theft but without a gun they were unlikely to kill someone by accident).

        Like

      • 180
        Four-eyed English Genius says:

        Life as in about 6 weeks!

        Like

  18. 23

    Are cop killers policemen who kill?

    Like

  19. 25
    Engineer says:

    The Dowler family have a good point regarding the treatment of victims and their families. The justice system does seem to bend over backwards to observe the ‘rights’ of the accused. That’s OK up to a point – justice should be fair and seen to be fair – but when you’ve endured an ordeal as horrible as losing a child in such circumstances, you should at the very least be treated decently by the agencies of the state and by the legal profession. Oh – and by journalists.

    Like

  20. 26

    Ignoring the “yes or no” issue of capital punishment, selective use if “yes” feels uncomfortable. Why’s the murder of a spouse or a parent less heinous than the murder of a child or a cop? Why’s the life of a non-cop adult impliedly worth less than the life of a child or a cop?

    All or none seems more equitable. But seeing as how our PC masters are so keen to genuflect to the allegedly no less morally justifiable culture of our Islamic cousins, why don’t we import their code of honour and blood-justice?

    Then the Dowlers would have the final say as to whether Bellfield gets the lethal injection. Sometimes I could like this…….

    https://twitter.com/#!/A_Liberty_Rebel

    Like

  21. 28
    Badger Courage says:

    Guido,

    As you probably know much depends on the question asked. There is actually only majority support for capital punishment before you explain all the drawbacks.

    Emotional reactions to particular horrible cases is understandable, but in the cool light of day the issues are more difficult.

    “Child Killers”: Define a “child”. What about children killling each other (Bulger case). All starts to unravel whn you consider the detail.

    “Cop Killers”: Why? What about Specials, PSCOs, Firemen, etc. Again not as simple as it appears.

    Also:

    Miscariages of justice – can’t bring them back to life.

    What categories of homicide?

    Murder vs. Manslaughter?

    No, this is one bandwaggon that won’t roll.

    Like

  22. 29
    Big Dan says:

    Guido (or that twat with the stupid hair)

    Take your stone age attitudes to crime and punishment and fuck off back to your stone aged country with them. Take your arsehole attitudes towards abortion with you too.

    Love and Hugs
    Dan

    Like

  23. 30
    Matthew R Palmer says:

    I have always supported the Death Penalty. Not for every serious offense because most murders are “husband and wife, live for 30 years together, one day something snaps and the other gets a bumped off”. No, I am looking at child killers, serial killers, police and prison officer killers, terrorists to start with.

    Lets deal with the miscarriage of justice issue – what about the people who get out of jail for murder and do it again, or the ones who get found not guilty and murder again. They also should be added to the discussion.

    Like

    • 81
      Yasmin Allah-Baba-Brown says:

      What about people who insult the Prophet (pbuh)?

      Like

      • 113
        Archer Karcher says:

        Please are you serious? Obviously not, insults are equated to murder in your world?

        Like

        • 150
          Postlethwaite says:

          You say I am looking at child killers, serial killers, police and prison officer killers, terrorists to start with.

          In my case i’ll start with Bush and Blair, then anyone who kills my family – includes the police. No-one to have a special double-oh rating.

          Like

          • Another anonymous says:

            Wtf fuck is this police and prison officer killers crap all about? Why are they so special? (And I say that as the son of a former prison officer)

            Like

    • 153
      Victoria Nottinghans says:

      What about serious rapists?

      Like

    • 157
      Victoria Nottinghamshire says:

      What about serious rapists?

      Like

  24. 32
    Elgin's lost his marbles says:

    In some US States, the jury votes on guilt and sentence, including the Death Penalty. If the jury decides, then the State cannot kill people at will.

    Whilst we’re at it, we need to bring back the ban on double jeopardy.

    And we should bring in the death penalty for perjury or suppression of evidence in capital cases as an extra safeguard if the Death Penalty were re-introduced.

    No reason to give cops extra protection either.

    Like

    • 288
      Jay says:

      “Whilst we’re at it, we need to bring back the ban on double jeopardy.”

      Oh right. You’re in favour of the state killing convicted murderers but if they go free and later technology helps to get them convicted, they should still be free because we can’t bring them before a judge?

      Am I missing something here?

      Like

  25. 35
    Milly says:

    They used to say An eye 4 an eye.. But now i say unto u… That’s what the majority think: no death penalty.

    Like

  26. 36
    David says:

    I recently re-read Antony Crosland’s essays and he observed in the 1970’s that if Parliament followed public opinion there would be (1) No Foreign Aid (2) Capital punishment would be re-introduced and (3) No immigration.
    A very perceptive observer I think.

    Like

    • 138
      Anonymous says:

      And why exactly would this be bad?

      Like

    • 181
      Titford Hat says:

      And Beeching wouldn’t have closed vast amounts of the railway system.
      What wouldn’t we give now to have all those railway lines back.

      Like

      • 227
        Barry says:

        Beeching closed nothng, he wrote a report.
        Others adopted the report and saved millions by closing some uneconomic , railway lines,but not all.
        No railway journey should be subsidised.
        Like road users all should at least pay the full cost.

        Freedom in travel

        Like

    • 373
      Another perceptive observer says:

      Crosland may have been a very perceptive observer, but he was the person who started the rot in our education system (helped on in spades by Shirley Williams) and the results are what you see in our pathetic schools today. If his “perceptive” policies had been adopted and he had kept his nose out of education, we would be in a much better position today.

      Like

  27. 42
    the last quango in paris says:

    don’t be so nasty – no evidence any child has died in Portugal.

    Like

  28. 44
    They're all the same says:

    No consistent libertarian can support state-sanctioned murder.

    Like

  29. 48
    Billy Bowden is the greatest umpire ever ! says:

    Lets ask Charles de Menzes and Ian Tomlinson about the police and there “Whiter than White” pratice?

    Like

  30. 49
    pierpoint says:

    Even in the ’80s, when there was a big tory majority, re-introducing the death penalty was heavily defeated in a free vote.
    Parliament is full of lawyers and is joined to the judiciary. Those people, don’t want it.
    Even if you had it, there would be years of appeals and re-trials and no one would ever get executed anyway or the first miscarriage of justice would turn public opinion against it..

    The concept of a death penalty is errr. well dead, in a modern European democracy.

    Like

    • 230
      Archer Karcher says:

      ‘modern European democracy’

      Would you let me know were such a thing exist’s outside of Switzerland?

      Like

  31. 50
    Tardkilller says:

    Guido Fawkes supporting State sponsored Murder.

    Oh the Irony.

    You’re wrong Guido, until the state can prove it can prosecute, judge and run trials fairly then theres just no way the state should allow sanctioned murder.

    Oh.. and it works well in the States and Thailand doesn’t it!! the trials cost millions and drag on for years in the states, in Thailand they bump people off in a blik of an eyelid but they STILL have high levels of murder and drug smuggling.

    It. Doesn’t. Work.

    Chemical castration and forced penal servitude, now THATS punishment

    Like

    • 120
      Anonymous says:

      Was umming and ahing this one and I think I agree. Banged up for violent crime/robbery = castration. I think for tax evasion it might be a touch ott. Every one of the buggers to do hard time, though. Don’t know why we;d need so many rocks breaking but fuggit, can’t hurt. I think in the long run Darwinism would then take over without needing to execute anyone.

      Like

    • 133
      keddaw says:

      How can you do penal service after castration?

      Like

    • 136
      smoggie says:

      What would Thailand be like if they did not have capital punishment?

      Like

    • 184
      Anonymous says:

      Very confused by this one. Don’t execute the brutal murderer on the off chance he’s innocent but happy to castrate him. That’ll go down well if he’s not guilty.

      Like

  32. 53
    Poldark says:

    Quite – why give the state that sort of power? Imagine what Blair would have done with it.

    These ideas come from the Book of Leviticus – far from a suitable basis for a justice system.

    Like

  33. 55
    It just don't add up says:

    So why did MPs vote yes to trying to kill Gadaffi, vote yes to setting up an Iraqi government that does have the death penalty but won’t give a death sentence to their home grown murderers?

    They really do NOT think things out.

    Then of course there are the pilotless drones being flown by Brits sat in US airbases dealing out swift justice on the P@ki/Afghan border. All with the blessing of our MPs.

    Then not so long back we saw video of Libyan conscripts on the ground being vapourised by British missiles enforcing a no fly zone. Since when did a truck fly?

    Like

  34. 56
    Jard says:

    I would think and hope that wrongful executions would be few and far between now, compared to the last time the death penalty existed here, given the lengths the CPS has to go to now just to get someone locked up for a few years and the huge advancements that have been made in forensic science.

    The Criminal Cases Review Commission issued one pardon and three exonerations on cases reviewed between 1950 and 1953 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution). Annual average at the time was 17. That’s four fuckups out of 51 some 60 years ago.

    How much tax £££ has been spent keeping the likes of Brady, Sutcliffe, Huntley, Hindley, West and now Bellfield alive (and protected) for years and years?? Surely the money saved by putting Bellfield an Co. in coffins rather than cells would cover the compo bill for the occasional judicial howler!

    I’ll sign Guido.

    Like

    • 116
      John Adlington says:

      Four wrongful executions out of 51 is nearly 10% – for God’s sake!

      Like

      • 211
        John77 says:

        (i) It wasn’t necessarily four wrongful executions – there is no evidence that Timothy Evans was innocent, but with hindsight suspicion naturally falls upon Christie and he was posthumously pardoned because he is no longer judged to have been guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Derek Bentley was hanged as an accessory to murder of a policeman and there is no doubt that his accomplice did murder the policeman. I had never heard of the other two.
        (ii) Four out 68 (1950, 1951, 1952, 1953 = four years) is nearly 6% but is a tiny fraction of the number of innocent people murdered as a result of abolition

        Like

      • 214
        Anonymous says:

        It was 60 years ago and no DNA and remember they probably were guilty anyway the review board would just be being ultra cautious.

        Like

  35. 61
    blackbyle says:

    Salus Populi will never be observed and enacted until we obey the wishes of the people and quit the EHCR.Cameron would walk in in ? If his spine is not spavined – a Bill of Rights would serve us well and ALL politicians might start to aquire our faith and diminish our loathing and contempt !

    Like

  36. 64
    Drunk Lawyer says:

    Guido, your position on capital punishment is completely out of kilter with your anti-state line. It has led me to conclude that you are no libertarian, just a Tory in denial.

    Like

  37. 67
    Engineer says:

    The problem with the death penalty, as others have observed, is the difficulty of recitifying a miscarriage of justice if one is subsequently proved. However, for most murders, life imprisonment should mean life, and in high security gaols with minimal luxuries. Compulsory hard labour may not be inappropriate, so prisoners at least make some contribution towards the cost of their incarceration. That would at least keep the public safe from those members of society proven to be most dangerous, without resorting to execution. The numbers involved are not great, I believe, and a guaranteed whole-life tarriff would act as a deterrent for all but the most deranged.

    Like

  38. 69

    You’re going down a dangerous road wanting capital punishment reintroduced. If we had a 100 per cent accurate, fair and honest justice system, maybe. But we haven’t.

    Like

    • 103
      annette curton says:

      I concur, the Police, CPS and Judiciary do not fill me with that much confidence on recent performance. T Blair will never see a rope.

      Like

  39. 71
    Execution is too easy says:

    Execution isn’t punishment. It’s quick and relatively painless. It’s far better to keep them locked up for their whole lives. That’s why the likes of Fred West and Harold Shipman committed suicide and why Myra Hindley never stopped trying to be released. They couldn’t face being imprisoned for the rest of their lives. Even now, Peter Sutcliffe still harbours unrealistic hopes of being freed.

    The emotional instinct to want to see the killer die is normal and understandable but the irony is that it’s the softest approach. The answer is to scrap so-called life sentences of 25 years and have whole life tariffs instead for killers and peedos.

    I’d rather have Bellfield in prison where he can have his arse torn to shreds every night for the next 50 years.

    Like

    • 190
      Anonymous says:

      Couldn’t agree more.

      A much better punishment than execution for a turd like Bellfield would be for him to spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement, minimal contact with other people, no privileges, nothing to look forward to, etc. and all done at minimal cost to the state. Oh, and his human rights can go fuck themselves.

      Like

    • 218
      Jabba the Cat says:

      I prefer the old school approach…

      Like

      • 291
        Devil's Dumplings says:

        Hmmm, statutory punishment for Civil Servants guilty of corruption and MPs who fiddle their expenses, anyone?

        Like

        • 344
          Poor Bill says:

          Thats more naughty steps, then naughty step.

          The Germans, they are bound to have somthing better then that, which we

          could use ?

          Like

  40. 72
    Billy Bowden is the greatest umpire ever ! says:

    First the sate for for my taxes , I said nothing…..

    Then the state came for my freedom of speech, i said nothing…..

    Now the state comes for the right to murder citizens, Do i still say nothing?

    Like

  41. 73
    Torminalis says:

    If the state has the right to remove even the most fundamental human right, the very right to life itself, then we take a step backwards and we become less civilised. A society can be judged on which rights it affords to those who least deserve them.

    The death penalty satisfies a lust for vengence but it diminishes the society and individuals who crave the right to execute criminals.

    Rule 1: Thou shalt not kill.

    Like

    • 243
      Archer Karcher says:

      ‘Thou shalt not kill’

      Oh do fuck off, if a crazed gunman was about to off your family and you had the means or ability to stop them by terminating their miserable existence you would do nothing but wimper on about ‘thou shalt not kill’ bollocks?

      Like

    • 345
      Poor Bill says:

      It’s ‘not murder’ you monkey. Try reading the fucking book.

      Like

    • 390
      Anonymous says:

      read the rest of the chapter you wanker, it goes on to say that those who do kill( literally murder) should be killed themselves !!!

      Like

  42. 75
    Postlethwaite says:

    Guido, you mention child and cop killers. I dont see any distinction between that group and the rest of us.

    If you DO make that a separate group then I would include cops who kill innocent civilians too.

    Like

    • 89
      Kevin T says:

      If they deliberately murder someone, I’d agree. If they’re to be hanged for shooting the wrong person in the line of duty then why would anyone agree to work on an armed response team? That possibility will always exist.

      Regarding just women and cops, I agree. I would personally have the death penalty for anyone who commits murder without a strong mitigating factor. So a battered wife who kills her husband would get clemency, while a piece of garbage who stabs someone for their mobile phone would get the long drop.

      Like

      • 107
        sockpuppet #4 says:

        Sounds like you’re talking “first degree” etc.

        Which probably needs doing anyway because “second degree” murder often is reduced to “manslaughter” (although probably only to get it through the courts more easily)

        Like

  43. 76
    Tim Williamson says:

    There should be a quid pro quo in our so-called justice system. You commit a crime — you forfeit some of your “rights”. The more serious the crime, the greater your forfeit. Of course, the ultimate forfeit is your own life. I wonder– just how many people do you have to kill before you lose your own life? One? Two, including a small child or maybe a grandmother? Three, using guns? Half a dozen in the course of a bombing campaign? Maybe it’s just three, if you rape and torture at the same time?No, none of those: it is deemed more civilised that the perpetrators continue to live and who knows — maybe released back among us after a few years. Society’s so-called representatives refuse to countenance justice, if justice is seen to be harsh in the eyes of the Human Rights Crusaders. Still, as long as they feel comfortable in their own morality, that’s all that matters. Isn’t it?

    Like

  44. 77
    tajblue says:

    I suspect this display of hubris signals the beginning of the end for you Guido

    Like

  45. 86
    HandsomeDavid says:

    The crime rate in America has been falling now for 20 years.

    Many different reasons have been put forward for this long trending situation. Google it and you will find many different explanations, reasons, excuses. At the end of the day a criminal behind bars is one that cannot reoffend.

    The three burglars that tried to burgle Tony Martin’s house had over 130 convictions between them. Make your own mind up about it but if they were behind bars then they would all have been alive today. The event would never have occurred.

    Like

  46. 90
    Anonymous says:

    Ah, that classic paradox at the heart of right-wing nutjobs’ perspective on the public sector. They think that all public servants are a bunch of moronic, overpaid wasters who can’t get anything right, except those in the criminal justice system, who are so infallible and trustworthy that they would never condemn an innocent person to death.

    Like

    • 117
      All police are pigs says:

      An excellent point. Truly. It would be the ultimate indignity to be executed by a civil servant. I don’t regard them as worthy of life themselves, and wouldn’t trust them to decide whether I live or die.

      For this reason, I avoid the NHS.

      Like

  47. 91
    Smokin' Butt says:

    Guido, this is what they call a dick move. Shame.

    Like

  48. 94
    pierrepoint says:

    Millys father is unable to comment as he is subject to a gagging order
    Something that causes him a great deal of pleasure

    Like

  49. 104

    So, by limiting it only to children and the police, you effectively de-value the lives of others? Laws must be applied consistently.

    There is no right of appeal once a death sentence has been carried out. We shouldn’t be too eager to deal out death in judgement. A fined man can always be recompensed; an imprisoned man can always be freed. A dead man cannot be brought back to life.

    What Bellfield did was despicable, and I fully empathise with Milly Dowler’s family. If someone did that to my daughter, I’d probably want them to hang as well. However, if we are to bring back capital punishment, it should only be in cases of murder where the defendant’s guilt can be proved beyond any doubt, not just the normal test of beyond reasonable doubt. I have no opposition to the democratic will of the people, but we are fools if we subscribe to the rule of the mob and the creed of the demagogue.

    Like

    • 188
      smoggie says:

      There’s rights of appeal before it is carried out. That’s the sensible time to do it – not after.

      Like

  50. 106
    Execution is too easy says:

    While child killer Ian Huntley’s been in prison, he’s been stabbed and beaten up. If he’d been executed, his ordeal would’ve been quickly over. Instead he’ll spend about 50 years locked up and in constant fear of being subjected to violent attacks. That’s satisfying. That’s real punishment.

    Like

    • 123
      Steve says:

      No; it is state sponsored torture.

      I have no problem with a weekly flogging or whatever done by the authorities, but I require thosae who lock people up on my behalf to keep them safe. Prisoners not kept safe should be free to apply for release.

      Like

      • 151
        Hush, leftie says:

        What fucking militant leftie marxist mid-80’s diversity collective did you time travel from? You think prisoners should be kept safe? Bad enough they get tvs, internet and radio. I hope Levi Bellfield’s sphincter gets annihilated every night and he’s forced to eat his own shit.

        Like

  51. 112
    Kevin T says:

    It’s worth bearing in mind that the death penalty was abolished largely because the kinds of murder common in the 1960s were crimes of passion and gangland murders. Neither an insanely jealous spouse nor a professional killer was likely to be deterred by the death penalty. (I would argue the jealous spouse should get a lengthy jail sentence rather than death).

    Today’s situation is very different. A large proportion of murders now, unlike then, are just senseless killings over “respect” or petty robbery or because someone looked at the killer wrong. There is a strong argument that the reason murders like this are so much more prevalent is the lack of any deterrent. Unpleasant, violent people in our society feel they have nothing to fear and they can do whatever they want. Re-introducing the death penalty might go some way to changing that view. When the first 19 year old “gangsta” has his neck broken for stabbing a woman who disrespected him, the rest of them might start to realise there actually is something that can happen to them.

    Like

    • 118
      Kevin T says:

      As for those who kill their female relatives over “honour”, can we have something worse than the gallows for those cases? Like crucifixion with nails perhaps?

      Like

      • 272
        h_pont says:

        for an honour killing, we should execute all the victim’s male relatives. that is the ONLY way to stop it

        Like

    • 134
      Mr Pro-Active says:

      Make it a capital offence to be a chav. Execute all of them, young or old.

      With the added bonus that Labour would never get re-elected.

      Like

      • 143
        Billy Bowden is the greatest umpire ever ! says:

        Eugenics?

        Like

        • 158
          Mr Pro-Active says:

          No, that stops them from breeding, it doesn’t stop the ones who are already alive from blighting society. Only “putting them down” will solve the problem.

          Like

    • 287
      Mr Cheesecake says:

      Of course, the death penalty in the USA acts as a great deterrent to all 19 year-old would-be ‘gangsta’ murderers…

      Like

      • 394
        Anonymous says:

        You mean the ones that live for a further 20 odd years on Death row before getting released ?

        Like

  52. 114
    Steve says:

    Surprised no-one has mentioned that if we bring back hanging we will have to leave the EU.

    But I favour it just on its own merits.

    The EU thing is just a bonus.

    Like

  53. 122
    Big Frank will fuck Levi up says:

    Let’s hope Bellfield’s cellmate is a big thug who has kids. Nonces are looked on with revulsion even by other prisoners and politically correct prisons keep them apart. But lucky mistakes can happen as with child killer Colin Hatch who got sliced and diced by his cellmate who hated nonces.

    Like

  54. 125
    Big Frank will fuck Levi up says:

    What does the inmate say to Bellfield just before he violently arserapes him?

    “Finally, a Levi’s that fits me”.

    Like

  55. 132
    Bleeding heart libbie says:

    Forgive! Levi is human too!

    Like

    • 141
      Ken Clarke, the criminals' friend, says:

      He’s just a little scamp! He should be free, not in prison!

      Chortle chortle.

      Like

  56. 140
    Order-Order Spokesman says:

    This thread was sponsered by the Sun Newspaper.

    Like

  57. 143
    MB. says:

    I wonder what the attitude of MPs would be if a Prime Minister or Speaker (not the current one obviously) or even MP was murdered / assassinated?

    Would they decide that they needed the protection of the death penalty?

    Like

    • 170
      Kevin T says:

      They’d have to have new, secure residences plus bulletproof limos and 24 hour SAS guard details, I imagine.

      Like

    • 215
      Engineer says:

      One was attacked, whilst conducting his surgery, by a deranged constituent with a knife not so long ago. The reaction didn’t seem unduly disproportionate.

      Like

    • 296
      Devil's Dumplings says:

      As I recall, after the Airey Neave murder, suddenly the Capital Punishment debate was back on again and resulted in a very close run vote.

      You can imagine the thought process can’t you? “Oooooh, this is getting a bit close and personal now; perhaps – if they’re gonna start murdering us sweet innocent MPs – we SHOULD bring back CP, or we’ll be the same as the plebs. And we can’t possibly have that now, can we?”

      Like

  58. 159
    John says:

    You really are a self-serving moron aren’t you?

    Like

  59. 165
    Gordon Brown says:

    tonight i am making banana fritters with bananas and batter and a deep fat fryer

    Like

  60. 169
    Anonymous says:

    check out Samuels QC chambers website – they are using the trail as a marketing tool to sell his services!!

    Like

    • 295
      Engineer says:

      Samuels should examine his conscience about the way he treated the victim’s family. He did not conduct himself with much honour.

      Like

  61. 172
    President Blair says:

    I take it that Blair pushing for a British Euro is part and parcel to him wanting to be the President of Europe.

    Like

  62. 174
    docpete says:

    If I had the slightest trust in the judicial system, the integrity of plod and the honesty of politicians, I would support the death penalty. Unfortunately I have no trust in any of them. Therefore I cannot support the death penalty. Anyway, it is far more unpleasant to be incarcerated for life than to get the easy way out.

    Like

  63. 176
    GlobalGaz says:

    I believe the honorable gentlemen in prison will make his life a shorter one….hopefully

    Like

  64. 177
    Anonymous says:

    There’s virtually no crime in Saudi Arabia.

    Deterrents DO have an effect.

    If someone knows he’s going to get his hand chopped off by the courts if he breaks into someone’s house, then he’s not going to do it.

    If someone knows he’s going to just get a letter from the courts to say he’s been a bit naughty and that if he did it again then he might get an even stronger-worded letter next time, then he’s still going to break into the house.

    The whole system (the courts, the police, the cps, and the government) is way too heavily weighted on the side of the criminal.

    What other country do you know of where 4 men wearing balaclavas break into your house, terrorise your family, and when you defend yourself you get arrested and put in a cell for at least 2 days?

    The police should not be arresting the innocent terrorised victims of a burglary (or allowing witnesses to be terrorised by a criminal’s defence lawyer in the courts), they should be giving them a medal for bravery, politely and humbly asking them for a witness statement at home, and then chasing the rest of the burglars so they can put them in jail for at least 20 years.

    Cameron needs to step in, force the police to release the arrested man in that case, and pass laws and guidelines that stop criminals from being treated like innocent victims and which stops innocent victims being treated like criminals.

    If someone broke into my house wearing a balaclava, I’d grab a kitchen knife and kill the fucker.

    I’m not going to stand there and say “please wait here until I phone the police, by the way, please don’t hurt me or my family. I hope you don’t have a knife.”. no, I’m going to grab the nearest weapon and pound the bastard to a pulp before he gets a chance to do the same to me.

    Does the burglar have a knife? It doesn’t matter; if someone breaks into your house then you’re being terrorised, and you have a right to defend yourself; you have the right to do to them what they’d do to you before they get a chance to do it.

    Cameron; stop fucking about, and pass laws that allow people to defend their own family/property, and fire the policemen/judges who terrorise victims but who treat criminals like innocent little angels.

    Enough is enough; stop this fucking obscene, twisted pro-criminal approach right now.

    Like

  65. 179
    smoggie says:

    Can any of these bleedin heart Guardian reading liberal childkiller defenders on here name me one miscarriage of justice in the last 25 years where an accused rapist was accidentally hanged?

    No.

    I thought not.

    Like

  66. 183
    Ed Miliband says:

    Thith murder wath clearly the rethult of coalition cutth. That’th right, I’ve uthed canther patienth and rape victimth for thamelethh and dithguthting political point thcoring. Only natural I now uthe child murder victimth. Labour: There are no depthth we won’t thtoop to.

    Like

  67. 186
    Tooth fairy says:

    There should be a two tier trial for any person charged with a capital crime. The first stage is the decision whether the person is guilty. The second stage as to what the recommendation as to penalty.

    Some cases are more vicious than others. In the case of Bellfield, having now been convicted of a second murder surely a jury would want to recommend the death penalty.

    Time and time again cases scream out at you that demand the death penalty… serial killers such as Tobin come to mind.

    I agree with you Guido that a campaign such as you will start will put pressure on our representatives to do what the public actually want.

    Like

    • 206

      What you’re describing effectively already happens. Contrary to what we see on TV and in the movies, judges in this country rarely hand down sentences just after the verdict has been delivered. The court is usually adjourned for various officers to report to the judge, and then a separate sentencing hearing is held, where the defendant’s barrister will try to get the sentence reduced by drawing attention to mitigating factors.

      Like

    • 302
      Devil's Dumplings says:

      D’accord; just because you have the availability of the remedy, doesn’t mean you HAVE to us it. However, having the ‘strategic Nuke’ does mean you can rid the world of sundry oxygen thieves.

      Like

  68. 191
    Octavius Tinsworth Ace says:

    The biblical concept of “an eye for an eye…” is commonly misunderstood to mean extreme punishment but is in fact a call for moderation of punishment in proportion to the offence – hence an “eye for an eye” and not a life for an eye. If we have to live in civilised society part of the social contract is that the right to exact punishment is taken from the individual and is delegated to the judiciary who enforce laws passed by the executive reflecting the will of the people. So much for the theory – where there is no effective punishment for wrong doing, the contract is broken. The judicial stance that Bellfield should rot in prison for life is hypocritical – they should have the guts and the sense to bring forward his departure date and if he had any honour (which he has not) he would top himself. It is almost worth getting banged up oneself just to have the chance to exact revenge on the fecker. As for his counsel, I hope that some unfortunate and grisly accident befalls him.

    Like

  69. 196
    Must get a pseudonym one day says:

    You can never get over the miscarriage of justice issue, so a different approach is needed. Here’s my proposal…..

    Anyone found guilty of murder should be given a basic sentence of, say, 15 years, plus double the lifespan they have ‘stolen’ from the victim.

    So, in the Dowler case, he would have got 15 years, plus twice the extra 70 years she could have expected to live, so 155 years, and that really is life.

    If someone kills a 75 year old, they would get the 15 years basic, plus another 20 years for the ‘stolen life add-on’, that’s 35 years in total.

    No remission for good behaviour – that’s the time inside.

    With that approach, we would have a system in which any miscarriages could be addressed, but it would also finally recognise what had been ‘stolen’ from the victim.

    Like

  70. 197
    Afghanistan Banana Stand says:

    Hanging the bastard would be too quick – especially for what he did to Milly.

    Leave him to rot in a 6 x 6 concrete cell, with just a hole in the ground to shit through.
    No TV. no magazines, no PS3. Nothing.

    Also let his fellow lags mete out their kind of justice – after all, prisoners or not, some of them will have teenage children.

    If there was less of this ‘human rights’ bullshit protecting scum like this child killer, then perhaps there would be less demand/outcry for hanging.
    He has to be seen to be punished, and our shitty ‘justice’ system will ensure that he, while incarcerated, will have a degree of comfort he should not be entitled to.
    He’s a child killer – treat him as such.

    On a different note; I look forward to reading in the papers that this shit has had his face slashed by another prisoner.

    Like

    • 284
      h_pont says:

      having his face slashed is nothing in comparison to what he did. he’ll get himself on the nonce wing and they’ll all get off on each others stories. some punishment

      Like

  71. 208
    Anonymous says:

    Last time I reported a crime (in this case breaking into my car, and then cutting my fuel line, leaving enough fumes in the underground flat car park to blow up the whole block of flats), the police refused to come round to even talk to me.

    I told them they had to come round, in the end, they did (after they realised I might take the law into my own hands because I knew who did it).

    When they finally arrived, I told them what’d happened, and that the only reason the block of flats hadn’t exploded was that in a 50/50 quirk of fate, I didn’t have a cigarette when I entered the car park that morning.

    The coppers said:
    “just kids having fun, just forget about it; there’s nothing we’re willing to do about it”

    I told them I knew who did it.

    They said “doesn’t matter; we’re not going to waste our time/money doing things like taking fingerprints from your car”

    2 weeks later my car was nicked, and a day after it was nicked I found it 2 miles down the road, engine blown up, windows smashed.

    Again, I knew who did it.

    I told the police to stop messing about and to fingerprint the car so they can finally catch the fuckers.

    They refused to turn up no matter what I said.

    To top it all, when my car was nicked (before I found it), some fucking bastard traffic warden put a parking ticket on my car even though it was obvious that it’d been abandoned by joyriders (smashed windows, ignition visibly smashed to pieces, car half on the kerb etc)

    I fucking hate the police with a passion. They are unbelievably incompetent, and a bunch of fucking evil shits who’ll do anything they can to protect criminals while treating innocent victims like scum.

    Changes to the law won’t make any difference while you have a police force that’s always on the side of the criminal.

    We need to fire the policemen who have that kind of pro-criminal attitude. It’s like someone who works for the fraud office saying “hey, it’s only a few million, just let them have the money”.

    Like

    • 353
      The bloke above is clearly a knob says:

      You are talking absolute utter bollocks with bells on. And you know it.

      I bet the rozzers didnt wanna help you because your a scumbag who is ‘known’ to them.

      Mind how you go.

      Like

      • 418
        Anonymous says:

        I’m not talking bollocks, the reason I knew who it was that did it was because it was the same local kids who did all the break-ins in that area where I used to live.

        I’ve seen them do it many times (to other people’s cars), but it always took so long for the police to arrive (if they bothered turning up at all) that they never caught them (and the police were never willing to take any statements from witnesses, they just cruised by in their cars, saw the perps had gone, and then drove away again)

        I also phoned them once saying “bunch of guys are outside, smashing the whole street to pieces with baseball bats, you’d better get here right now otherwise they’ll be nothing left or they’ll kill someone” – about an hour later a police car drives past, see they’ve gone, and then they just go back to the station.

        I was only “known” to the police because I was one of the many innocent victims that tried to phone them when people/property was being attacked. I’ve got no criminal record, and have never committed a crime (apart from perhaps stealing a mars bar from an unattended market stall for a dare about 30 years ago when I was a kid, but that’s about the limit of my criminal activity).

        Police are a fucking waste of time.

        Like

  72. 212
    Disco Stew says:

    We all know that if as promised Life meant Life, there would not be a problem.
    The British people were conned by the Liberal/Political class.We were told (lied to)that when we got rid of the Death penalty,Murderers would be sent down for life. If we had been told that Life would mean anything from 8 years, if you behaved yourself ,no way could they have got it through.
    Unfortunately,because of this all other crimes have been devalued,sentence wise.
    It always makes me laugh when the left say”the Murder rate has not changed since the abolition” conveniently forgetting to say that Homicide has gone through the roof. But of course they would say there was no connection. Fkin idiots.

    Like

    • 392
      Anonymous says:

      You also have to factor in the advances in medical treatment and emergency response over the last 40 years. Without these the murder rate would be even higher. The rate of violent attacks on victims is a more useful statistic than just those that result in death.

      Like

  73. 217
    nell says:

    There would have to be absolutely 100% certainty that the conviction was right . And hanging is not suitable as a death penalty for a civilised country like us. I think a firing squad would be better.

    Having said that , ianhuntley, if what we read is right, has found prison a hellish experience from which he has tried to escape through suicide several times. A lifetime sentence of such brutality is obviously unbearable to these people . So perhaps it is fitting that we should leave them to spend many unhappy years, growing old in prison and suffering miserably to the bitter end

    Like

    • 222
      smoggie says:

      Quite. What’s the point of Huntley’s life now? He can never be released; he will contribute nothing; he is an unnecessary expense.

      He forfeited his human rights when he deprived two others of theirs.

      Like

  74. 219
    This is 2011 not 1911 or 1511 says:

    Rather than doing time a convict should have time taken away. For serious crimes, such as this, they should be put in medically-induced comas and if no successful appeal is obtained within seven years, they should be allowed to die.

    An execution is 100% denial-of-time-to-live and runs the risk of miscarriages – juries are less likely to convict anyway. However removing the ‘enjoyment and privileges’ that the Human Rights Act gives convicts by rendering them comatose would provide greater comfort to the bereaved families of victims.

    If convicts who have killed know that they may ‘wake-up’ as old people or not at all – it would be a deterrence.

    Like

  75. 225
    SpeedTriple says:

    Housing this cnut for the rest of his life is a disgrace.

    Get him hanged

    Dom
    http://www.speedtriple.co.uk

    Like

  76. 246
    smoggie says:

    This should get the stats up for the week. ;-)

    Like

  77. 247
    Edmund Burke says:

    E-Petitions my fucking bollocks

    Like

  78. 249
    Bird with small brain says:

    Very unimpressive Guido. If we did what the majority want we’d still be ducking witches.

    Like

  79. 250
    simon r says:

    I wouldn’t have a problem with there being no death penalty if prison life was like this for lifers…

    Bare cell, no window, no tv, no mobile phone, no magazines, just a sink, a loo and a bed.
    No computer access, no gym, no dvds, no computer games.
    Food – eat it or go without. No frills, no treats.
    Locked in 24 hours a day – except for 1 day when it is 23.
    No drugs – not even cigarettes.
    1 visit a month.
    No pocket money.
    Prison is in middle of nowhere – disused oil rig would be good – stuff the family.
    Life means you are there until you die.

    Like

    • 264
      Sir William Waad says:

      No, that’s too good for them. Put them in a Premier Inn.

      Like

      • 322
        annette curton says:

        You may jest but It now costs £45,000 per year to detain somebody at her majesties pleasure, its only about £40 a night (off peak or long stay) in most inner city hotels for accommodation and that would give them a double with an en suite bathroom (no slopping out). £40 per night x 365 = only £14,600 so that would give a net saving to the exchequer per prisoner of £30,400 per annum.
        Should the prison services be privatised?.

        Like

  80. 251
    Anonymous says:

    Going off at a tangent. Hope the bloke who killed the burglar is not hung out to dry. If the burglar crossed the doorway he has lost all rights. Seems he was on bail for …. burglary lol.

    Like

    • 270
      Anonymous says:

      The fact that the police decided to arrest the man who got terrorised in his own house by balaclava-wearing burglars tells you everything you need to know.
      The police absolutely hate people defending themselves (unless the person defending themselves is a proven criminal, in which case the police will bend over backwards to help them avoid any kind of arrest/charge and give them psychological counselling for the horror of being shouted at by an angry householder)

      They arrested the innocent terrorised victim of a burglary for defending himself? Whoever the copper was who sanctioned that should be dragged through the street by his bollocks and then fired from his job.

      What was the police advice when asked about “what should you do if a bunch of balaclava-wearing men storm your house and hold you at knifepoint?”….

      “just phone the police”

      yeah, right, should I phone the police before, or after, the burglars knife me in the neck? fucking twats.

      I hope Cameron forces the police to release that guy right now, gives him a medal for bravery and for doing society a favour, and then fires the fuckwitted copper who sanctioned the arrest.

      Like

  81. 268
    Jess The Dog says:

    Giving the state the power of execution is wrong and there is no need for the death penalty. It is not a deterrent to determined or impulsive killers. But criminals like this should be locked up until they die, with no TVs or outings. That may restore faith in the justice system.

    Like

  82. 273
    Andrew says:

    It’s not going to happen and you know it’s not.

    And if it does it is certainly not going to be retrospective.

    What was the point of the trial? He is doing a whole-life tariff as it is. He won’t serve a day longer. What a waste of money.

    Like

    • 379
      Anonymous says:

      The point is they needed to pin the murder of Milly Dowler on somebody due to the high-profile nature of the crime and the public expect someone to get sent down for it.

      The evidence that this guy did the Milly murder seemed pretty thin to me. The fact that the Jury was told about his past convictions I suspect contributed greatly to the guilty verdict. Most other common-law countries do not allow past convictions to be admitted as evidence in a trial.

      That said, he probably did do it.

      Like

      • 401
        Andrew says:

        Not sure. If he did it, why bother to defend? It makes not a jot of difference to him. I’m left in lurking doubt.

        Like

  83. 278
    MB. says:

    Shouldn’t there be more criticism of the lawyers who were prepared to subject the family to such questioning? “Only obeying orders” from the defendant is no excuse.

    Like

    • 289
      Anonymous says:

      The judge shouldn’t have allowed it.

      The defence lawyers shouldn’t have done it, but the judge should have stopped the defence lawyers dead in their tracks as soon as it became apparent they were traumatising the witnesses.

      It makes you think that if your kid got killed by a serial-murdering evil bastard, what’s the fucking point of going to court just so that the serial-murdering evil bastard can traumatise you even more and be backed-up by a moronic judge? Just kill the fucker yourself, that’s what i’d do (after I’d “played” with him a while that is, like a cat high on catnip playing with a mouse).

      Like

    • 320
      purpleline says:

      Lawyers or failed Actors should be forced to have a conscience.

      The Ambulance chasers no win no fee merchants should be banned

      Like

    • 321
      the last quango in paris says:

      the lawyers were only following his ‘instructions’ as crap as they were – they have been tested in court and found out to be rubbish? thats what happens. the fact that mr dowler was into other stuff was an unfortunate red herring and one that the police were guilty of taking far too much notice of.

      Like

    • 323
      Fitbad the Tailor says:

      The lawyers were only ‘Obeying orders’. Is that really what happens? The lawyers wait for the defendant to give them orders on how to conduct the defence? I never realised thats how it worked.

      Like

      • 357
        MB. says:

        Don’t lawyers have the option to refuse to continue working for a client?

        But of course they presumably would not be paid then.

        Like

        • 402
          Andrew says:

          No, they don’t, not once they have taken the case, except in certain limited circumstances, and none of them arose here.

          Like

  84. 294
    Mr J I H A D I says:

    Sharia law is an ineviatably now in England anyway and before all the pious holier than thou lefties and sacks of bird shit that pretend to be the modern right chime in, what are you limp wristed poofs going to do about it? Every time the muslims kick up a stink you are there saying how high can we jump for you, what can we do for you?

    You aren’t going to do nothing and then when Sharia law comes in you’ll pretend you where for it all along not to upset our new masters….

    Like

  85. 298
    Mercian says:

    Well said Guido. Parliament should carry out the will of the people, not some pious politically-correct agenda.

    Like

  86. 308
    sandown says:

    In the original, the Ten Commandments do not say : “Thou shalt not kill. ”
    God has been misquoted.

    They say : “Thou shalt do no murder.”

    Like

    • 421
      Anonymous says:

      In the truly original version, the first commandment was:

      “Do not believe something that makes no sense and for which there is not (and never has been) any proof or evidence, where the only theory for its existence is pure blind faith using cyclical argument”

      the “It’s true because I know it’s true” cyclical argument doesn’t hold water with me, because *I* don’t know it’s true, so why should I believe anyone else when there’s no proof/evidence or even a theory?

      I’m on Richard Dawkins’ side I’m afraid.

      If I believe in God, then I might as well believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden. Hey, my 3 year old tells me there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, so it must be true? Sorry, I don’t buy into that “it’s true because I’m telling you it’s true, even though there’s no proof/evidence for its existence in the entire history of the universe” argument.

      Like

  87. 314
    the last quango in paris says:

    How about we all face the fact that prisons in their current form don’t work – all they do is remove the problem from society for a few years.

    I propose much harsher prisons but not mixed one – eg a prison for burglars etc where they rehabilitate etc.. this will work for people with addictions etc and address anger issues etc….. All murderers should be in the same place and made to work for the rest of their lives and paedos should be caged together and locked up indefinately as i think it has been proved that they are unlikely to be rehabilitated. Probation in its current form also has to go as try as you might but a suit asking a psychopath to not commit crimes and turn up to an appointment is never going to work.

    We need respect in our Courts which the Dowler case does not give us but interestingly if there were cameras with a legal expert explaining what was going on and why might put things into context. Whether anyone likes it or not the QC was entitled what he put to the Dowler family.

    Finally if Mr Clarke wants to save some money perhaps he can get the COurts to sit before 10.30 and after 4 to fit in line with the rest of the workers.

    People would not be calling for the death penalty as loudly if prisons were not seen as a soft touch when the real reason for tvs etc is that there are not enough staff and it keeps prisoners quiet.

    Like

  88. 317
    purpleline says:

    I cannot wait until politicians have to go through a primary to get elected to Parliament, because the first and only question I would ask and I am sure we could generate a campaign for this is .

    If you are representing the majority view of the people putting you on the ticket for a seat at Parliament, will you vote for the restoration of the death penalty, if the people show a clear majority for it in your constituency.

    A yes they get through a No they get rejected.

    We need to pack Westminster with representatives of the majority view politicians should not have their own freedom of choice.

    Like

  89. 319
    Hang The Bastards says:

    HANG THE BASTARD !

    and while we are at it hang all the outspoken minority leftie murder hugging sandle wearing do-gooders who stop us getting justice !

    Like

  90. 326
    Anonymous says:

    Hell no! I don’t want him and scum like him to die! Why on earth should I want their sufferings to end? Mutilate him: cut off his arms and legs. Make him completely deaf, mute and blind. Surgically make him paralysed apart from the most basic life functions. Leave him alone with the monster he is for a long long time.

    Like

  91. 328
    Voice of Treason says:

    Hang the bastard and then punch the defending QC Jeffrey Samuels on his big fat nose for putting Millie’s family through such hell. What an obnoxious ten by two the swine is!!

    Like

  92. 329
    Down With Brown! says:

    For a libertarian, murder is the most horrible thing imaginable. Poor Milly, murdered in the most vile way before she had the chance to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    Like

  93. 333
    hava nagila says:

    Very few people on this site would trust the government to do anything right. Most of us spend our time complaining about the failure of government (of all parties) to do anything right. We, on the libertarian right, also spend a lot of time complaining about the incompetence of a politicised police force and the general worthlessness of the judiciary.

    And despite all of that, you would take a government which can’t fix roads or collect garbage properly, a police force that is crippled by its own incompetence and moral cowardice and a judiciary that is regularly castigated for its undemocratic nature and interference in politics and you would trust those entities to decide who should live and who should die.

    Mr. Fawkes, who regularly regales us with tales of how Oirish he is, can remember the 1980s – the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six and others – and we can all surely remember cases like that of Stefan Kiszko. And despite all of this, you people throw your political convictions and your commitment to liberty in the garbage as soon as you get a chance to participate in a real live lynching.

    What a wonderful commitment to liberty you all have. Kudos.

    Like

    • 347
      Poor Bill says:

      This case conserns a multiple killer who killed for only a few moment of sexual trill.

      To be found guilty of one murder, you didn’t commit is unlucky, but three ?

      Now that is an act of God. And god is saying ‘hang this bastard’.

      Like

  94. 336
    happyuk says:

    I personally do not agree with re-instating hanging. In my view it’s barbaric and not a deterrant. Having said this, if it was a TRUE democracy we lived in, the death penalty would still be with us.

    By the way, Timothy Spall I think played Albert Pierrepoint superbly in this made-for-TV film:

    Like

    • 350
      Disco Stew says:

      of course it’s a deterrent,Why else has homicide rates shot through the roof since the abolition? Or is that just coincidence?

      Like

      • 361
        Anonymous says:

        If it’s a deterrent, why is the murder rate higher in America?

        Within America, the state with the highest murder rate has the death penalty.

        Like

        • 369
          The Peoples hangman-true equality says:

          They have the death penalty but do tell how any times have they used it comared to the amount of murders there has been in the last 20 years ?
          Please tell me or else I will think you are a stupid fuck !

          Like

  95. 337
    Robert Gabriel Mugabe's Aching Prostate says:

    I’ve seen real justice for this type of crime dished out. The perp [an armed thief who shot a local storekeeper] was chased and caught by members of the community. He was then smashed to bits by the crowd using whatever weaponry that was conveniently to hand.

    And when, eventually, Mr Plod had brushed off his doughnut crumbs and waddled onto the scene to ask his usual stupid questions: no one saw or knew anything.

    Job done.

    Like

    • 368
      The Peoples hangman-true equality says:

      Excellent, no room for afalse alibi dreamed up by a corrupt Lawyer there then

      Like

  96. 341
    annette curton says:

    More tea Vicar?,FFS.

    Like

  97. 342
    happyuk says:

    Left-wingers despise the rule of law because it interferes with their ability to rule by mob. Left-wingers love to portray themselves as the weak taking on the strong. In reality, once the rule of law is gone it is the least powerful who suffer the most. Notice that left-wingers will never ask: Who did what in this murder/rape/robbery/terrorism case. All they want to know is which race/class of people are on trial. “Social justice” is the only justice that interests the Left because it’s the only justice that can be delivered by the political agitation of a mob.

    In the states Dominique Strauss-Kahn is about to discover that even the most shittily-paid immigrant cleaning lady has the same legal rights as he in court.

    Exactly the way it should be.

    Like

  98. 348
    Lord Denning's Ghost says:

    Capital punishment should not be re- introduced for the simple reason of how the system works. Politicians will always follow the hue and cry of popular opinion to get votes. Bureaucrats will appease the desires of the politicians to get promoted. What if the hue and cry of popular opinion is wrong? The State cannot be trusted, history shows us this. It is a fundamental truth that no State system should be entrusted with the judicial power of life and death over it’s Citizens. It is true to assume that it is better that 100 guilty criminals should avoid capital punishment, rather than one innocent victim be judicially executed by the State.

    Like

  99. 349
    So courts will always get it right will they? says:

    Sorry, Guido, you’re being terribly simplistic. This story will bomb just like your Pope loving ones last summer. Perhaps you shouldn’t let your religion cloud your normally rational thought?

    Capital punishment has no place in a free society. Why? (Argh, I sound like Nick Robinson!) Because there will always be miscarriages of justice. And there a few more terrible things a state can do than execute the innocent. The way the police were going with this one they would have been happy to see the dad hang!

    And why would you want it just for cop and kid killers? Seems a bit arbitrary; many murders of adults are just as evil.

    Like

    • 366
      The Peoples hangman-the sheer fucking stupidity of some people says:

      Cars will never have aplave in civillized society, why ? Because accidents occur and innocent people are killed.

      Like

      • 374
        So courts will always get it right will they? says:

        Bollocks comparison. Car crashes are genuine accidents, as terrible as they are. In a miscarriage of justive, the state would, however mistakenly, be deliberately killing and innocent person.

        Have you ever watched 12 Anrgy Men?! If I was a juror, I’d definitely find it easier to make a decision if another potentially innocent man wasn’t going to lose his life if I got it worng.

        Like

        • 391
          Anonymous says:

          You confuse the state with the jury. And you are at least correct in that Jurys are useful and can aquit

          Like

  100. 352
    Your HR end where others' begin says:

    From an ethical pov, to witness the pain and the clearly ongoing agonies of Millie Dowler’s family is going through, I don’t believe that I -or anyone else- is in a position to tell them they’re wrong to wish to see the final part of justice enacted via a noose. Perhaps this ultimate punishment should be the right of the families of the victims of such murders to demand, with maybe a 10 month ‘cooling’ period (from the time of the conviction) at the end of which, if they felt it still appropriate, then a sentence of execution would take place.

    There’s a part of me would like to see this unrepentant wretch put in a pit with a lion or a bear (hanging being too quick and merciful). But all the mercy that should be extended towards such as him would be no more than a speedy dispatch, which, I’d point out to anyone who brought up the question of the perpetrator’s HR, is damn sight more dignity than he afforded his victims.

    Like

    • 365
      The Peoples hangman- The argument in a nutshell says:

      I lost interest in your bogus argument about two sentences in, then I fell asleep. Tell me, ave you ever seen a mrdered child on a mortuary slab ? Jst wonderingl

      Like

  101. 356
    Anonymous says:

    If capital punishment had been possible then Bellfield might not have been tried for Milly Dowler’s murder as he had already been convicted of two other murders three years ago, and the Dowler family would not have seen their daughter’s killer convicted.

    Also the evidence against Bellfield was mostly circumstantial, character and hearsay. A jury might have been less likely to convict on weaker evidence if there was a possibility of hanging an innocent man.

    Like

  102. 360
    Anonymous says:

    “If it passes Guido will put all the resources at his command into a campaign for a vote on the restoration of capital punishment for child and cop killers.”

    So you turn 18 and your life is suddenly worth less than when you were 17?

    I’m against the death penalty because I don’t believe that the state is infallible, but if you’re going to support the death penalty, at least do it with some consistency.

    Like

  103. 362
    The Peoples hangman- The argument in a nutshell says:

    It is better that 100 men women and children are murdered than 1man /woman is hung by mistake.

    Like

    • 413
      Robinson says:

      You present a false dichotomy, which is a logical fallacy, which means your argument is bollocks.

      Like

  104. 370
    The Peoples hangman-true equality says:

    The argument of the left and those unconciously influenced by the Left goes like this. Take a country who has the death penalty though ( importantly ) doesnt use it and then claim it doesnt deter ! Hah see what I did there !!!!

    Like

  105. 376
    Man Friday says:

    Bring on the debate with our MPs if nothing else but to rebalance the system.

    A proud parent of middle England.

    Like

  106. 377
    Anonymous says:

    You’ll lose, Guido. I’ll make sure of it.

    Like

  107. 380
    wattana says:

    cop killers, i find it an insult you rate police lives higher than other people especialy as they took on the job

    Like

  108. 386
    The Witchfinder General says:

    Homicide has risen because of how society has changed and grown and has nothing to do with the abolition of hanging. MPs obviously don’t want to start on the road back to capital punishment because when there is a mistake, and there will be a mistake, it will come back on them far worse than if they just ignore any clamours for its return. Your bleeting on this topic is white noise, back to the proper stuff please.

    Like

  109. 388
    ISO 9000 says:

    I read your post . it was amazing.Your thought process is wonderful.
    The way you tell about things is awesome. They are inspiring and helpful.Thanks for sharing your information and stories.
    iso 9000

    Like

  110. 399
    Gavin says:

    The problem with the Death Penalty is innocent people end up getting killed by the State. At least with a life sentence they can be released once the miscarriage is proved.

    Like

  111. 400
    ToryWhig says:

    This debate should less be about the death penalty, and more about democracy and letting the people decide. The debate on the death penalty is a smoke screen for the real issue. Every poll has come out for the death penalty.

    Like

  112. 403
    Paleo says:

    Let one innocent hang rather than let 100 murderers live. As:

    A) Everybody is going to die anyway, and

    B) The innocent dead get a big plus up there.

    Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

    Like

    • 408
      So courts will always get it right will they? says:

      Have you really just stated that innocent people dying is ok because they’ll get treated better in heaven?! Fucking hell, that is the worst bit of debate I’ve ever had this misfortune to read. We’re talking about real life here ffs!

      Like

    • 429
      Anonymous says:

      I can only assume that he’ll happily go to the gallows himself in order to ensure that some guilty people do too.

      Like

  113. 404
    Enoch Powell says:

    The cop killers were acting in the course of duty. They may have been a bit trigger-happy or baton-happy, I agree. But hanging Simon Harwood and his various other colleagues would be a little drastic.

    Like

  114. 407
    Dale Jones says:

    Let’s just hope that the prison guards don’t forget the proper way to address prisoners and show them respect (even if their is none).
    “That’s Mr Prisoner to you, warder is told”

    Like

  115. 417
    Bob of Bonsall says:

    There is only one arguement against Capital Punishment. Digging timothy Evans up to say sorry was a bit late.

    For those who, understandably perhaps, support the Death Penalty, I have one question.
    “If it was you, or a much loved close relative, stood on that trapdoor with a rope arround your neck as an innocent victim of a miscarriage of justice, would you still suport it?”

    Like

    • 427
      treetop says:

      The corollary to this is so many innocent people killed by those who consider jail no deterrent and re-offenders after they have been released.

      Like

  116. 419
    Anonymous says:

    I don’t think I’d trust the police/cps/government/courts with being given the ability to kill someone convicted of a murder, no matter how horrible the murder was.

    Why? Well, the police shot an innocent man 5 times in the head at point blank range purely on the grounds that he looked “a bit foreign”.

    The copper in charge of the operation ended up getting promoted, and nobody in the government or in the police ever took any blame. They just said “yeah, well, shit happens, let’s leave it alone. Move along, nothing to see here”.

    I could never trust a system with someone’s life when that system is capable of that kind of negligent moronic cowardice, stupidity, and corruption.

    There is absolutely no way I’d trust the system with capital punishment; all it takes is a negligent or corrupt copper to fuck up a single piece of evidence, and you kill an innocent person.

    The pro capital punishment lobby seems to be under the mistaken impression that the police, cps, courts, juries, and government never make any mistakes and are not corrupt in any way. Well, that’s shite.

    Would you trust a system that protects a footballer against gossip, but allows the terrorism of the relatives of a murder victim by a moronic judge?

    If I saw a man kill my kids, then, yes, I’d do him myself, and then some. But I’d have to have seen it happen (or I’d have to have heard him personally say that he’d done it), there’s no way I could trust the police.

    Why wasn’t Bellfield caught earlier, before he killed Milly? Because the police were too fucking stupid to just lift the phone and call a local estate agent to see who was renting a house that wasn’t answering their house-to-house calls. Would you trust the police? I wouldn’t; they’re fucking morons, and corrupt to boot.

    Like

    • 422
      Anonymous says:

      actually, he killed others after he killed milly, and it’s those other murders that would have been stopped if the police had done their job properly in the milly case.

      Like

  117. 426
    treetop says:

    A sad indictment of our so called democracy that perpetuates an anti democratic stance to be taken by the state when so large a majority continues to support the death penalty for murder. The politicians are too weak to take responsibility for having a referendum to see what the public position is and wriggle out of this to avoid the inevitable. Does it take a national conversion to sharia law for us to see this penalty restored ?

    Like

  118. 428
    Anonymous says:

    Why is it worse to kill someone aged 17 years, 364 days than it is to kill someone 24 hours later when they’re no longer a child?

    Like

  119. 433
    Anonymous says:

    Homicide rates were consistently rising before the abolition of capital punishment so you should really have a look at other variables before you attribute it falsely to prove your uneducated viewpoint.

    But I agree that it’s a great idea to go on the say so of one grieving family to change the foundation of the justice system. They’re clearly speaking from an objective and informed view point.

    Inanity tbh.

    Like

  120. 434
    Peoples hangman full of shit says:

    You obviously consider yourself quite the thinker, and extremely clever, The Peoples hangman, but sadly you’re just a fucking thicko. You should have someone more literate than yourself check your foul posts for grammar and syntax you uneducated tool; there’s nothing worse than a pseudo-intellectual.

    Like


Tip off Guido
Web Guido's Archives

Subscribe me to:






RSS




AddThis Feed Button
Archive


Labels
Guido Reads
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,645 other followers