Wednesday, August 12, 2009

An eye for a tooth

Look here, upon this picture, and on this,
The genuine presentment of two pairs of vermin.

Those on the left need no introduction: their stone faces are icons of depravity and barbarism.

Those on the right are the mother and step-father of ‘Baby P’ – Peter Connelly – who died in agony in a blood-stained cot with 50 injuries to his body, including blows to the head so hard he swallowed a tooth, missing fingernails ripped out in some form of torture, a torn earlobe, eight fractured ribs and a broken back.

Hindley and Brady were found guilty of torture and murder and sentenced to life imprisonment – in the days when life meant life.

Connelly and Barker were found guilty of... err... well, he got 12 years for ‘causing death’ and she got five for ‘allowing’ it.

She will be eligible for parole in just three years.

It was not quite murder, you see. She only stood by while her son was repeatedly attacked.

Of course, the effect is the same: Peter is no more.

On earth, anyway.

Just like Pauline Reade, John Kilbride, Keith Bennett, Lesley Ann Downey, and Edward Evans are no more.

And Peter was tortured.

Just like the victims of Hindley and Brady.

And in some ways worse, for those who were inflicting the torture and privation were the very people he looked to for love and protection.

One wonders what today’s criminal justice system would make of Hindley and Brady.

They would have been sent to clinical psychologists and psychotherapists so the courts could hear of how the ‘broken society’ made them selfish, calculating and manipulative; how loneliness drove them to an internet networking site and how they spent their days drinking vodka, watching pornographic films and having sex. And consultants who have studied women who abuse or collude with a partner's abuse would have declared that Hindley is a victim: in cases like this there is often this early experience of abuse and trauma and neglect in the mother's background.

And Hindley’s evil would have been rationalised as the development of a narcissistic attitude or way of relating to children as an extension of herself; and so she treats children with the cruelty, contempt and neglect to which she was herself exposed. Accounts of her therapy would have disclosed notes which revealed her thoughts: ‘Life is bullshit’; ‘I'm fed up with letting people down. All my life I have messed up. When will I ever get it right?’. And we would have heard of her low self-esteem and suicidal tendencies: ‘Sometimes I wonder why I am here as I always feel I'm useless and worthless. People should stay away from me as I have always messed up everyone who's close to me. I'm a jinx to all I know.’

The court would then have heard that these cases are not rare. And because of the scale of this the dynamics of the maternal abuse, neglect or collusion in a partner's abuses should not be overlooked. It needs to be examined, understood and addressed, because scarred, abused and love-impoverished children grow up to be scarred, abusive, love-impoverished adults.

And poor Brady, with an IQ of 60, went to a failing school which Ofsted had put in special measures. He showed great promise, but the state system let him down very badly. He would have applied for Oxbridge under Lord Mandelson’s proposals for lower entry criteria for the deprived, but the ‘broken society’ got the better of him.

We would have heard tales of how Brady’s father was a sex offender and always absent. And of a neglectful mother and other relatives who lured him into a paedophile ring. And so he too is a victim, and not wholly responsible for the abuse he meted out on innocent children.

And so this context mitigates their sentences, because they genuinely tried to make the best out of their unpromising starts in life. But they lived in a private hell from which they could not escape, and they should not be damned for circumstances beyond their control. They should be understood.

And there would have been more psychiatric assessments and a probation report. And then they would have been released on parole because they were considered to be no longer a risk to young children.

And on their release, they would have been given new identities and anonymity under Article 2 of the Human Rights Act, the right to life, and Article 8, the right to privacy and family life. And they would have been assured of round-the-clock police protection, all at the expense of the taxpayer.

And Hindley and Brady would have been moved into a nice home, right next door to you.

And you would never have known.


Anonymous G Eagle Esq said...

Your Grace

Perhaps your Learned Friends among your Communicants can help us with these points of information

1. ?? Was bedeutet [what is the meaning of] :

"an indeterminate sentence with a minimum of 12 years"

?? Does it mean that this wRetch will be released at the earliest possible date (6 years less any time served in custody before sentence)

... to be accompanied by a lavishly funded change of identity and a credit card life-style

2. ?? How much is this wRetch's incarceration likely to cost

Presumably much less than a Hospital and something approaching 2 MP's 2nd Home allowances, replete with Duck-Ponds, 88p plugs, £10 Pornography etc and 2nd Homes in Southampton

Your Grace's obedient servant etc


12 August 2009 at 09:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace what about brining back the death penalty, thus saving us all some money ?

The French got something right when they invented the guillotine it seems......

12 August 2009 at 10:04  
OpenID scottspeig said...

And yet the thing is, is that it would be true.....


12 August 2009 at 10:06  
Blogger Dave said...

Bring back the death penalty. Problem solved. No re-offending, no expensive new identities, no proson overcrowding.

And no shortage of volunteers to apply the noose

12 August 2009 at 10:21  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Agreed, death penalty is cheaper and quicker, but why not use the guillotine ? Isn't chopping off a head in quick burst, more civil than hanging ?

12 August 2009 at 10:31  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Anonymous (10:31)—This is from the Pierrepoint website:

As well as being the most prolific executioner he [Albert Pierrepoint] was also considered the most efficient, having been responsible for the swiftest execution on record. It took place at Strangeways Prison in Manchester in 1951. On the 8th May of that year James Inglis was led from his cell and pronounced dead just 7 seconds later.

•Johnny Rottenborough’s August blog•

12 August 2009 at 10:48  
Anonymous I Albion said...

If these evil b******s can do this what will they not do ,so they can never be let out on the grounds they are"cured"or have paid for their crimes,they must stop in prison till they die,or the death sentence,but some hope,even now, prison visitors will be looking after their "rights" given some animals to practice on perhaps,to keep them happy.

12 August 2009 at 10:48  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Best argument for bringing back the death sentence I've seen in a while...

Unbelievable - my verification is "force". There definitely is an Irony Fairy!

12 August 2009 at 11:03  
Anonymous Anabaptist said...

If ever there were a case for retaining the death penalty, this would have been it. After all, there is no doubt that they did it. One of the arguments used against the death penalty is the danger of executing the innocent. That would not apply in this case.

However, had the death penalty been retained, it is unlikely it would have applied to these murderers.

I am inclined to think that the death penalty is a significant mark of a civilised and humane society. Where crime is reduced to a sociological/psychological problem, and the concept of guilt is removed, the door is opened to 'treating' offenders rather than punishing them.

In the Soviet Union, dissenters were regarded as mentally ill (a position not unlike that concerning religious people as advocated by Richard Dawkins). They were treated accordingly by incarceration in secure mental hospitals.

The idea of a term of imprisonment is inappropriate in such a case. They need to be 'treated' until they are 'cured'.

The distinction between crime and illness gradually disappears where nuture is allowed as an excuse.

On the other hand, it is certainly the case that abusers are very likely to have been themselves abused in early life, suggesting that nurture has a part to play.

There are no easy answers, though we may wish to reach for one in this case.

12 August 2009 at 11:07  
Anonymous Mike Stallard said...

This must be linked to Christianity and fast.
Christians (especially Catholics: see "Charity and Truth") that the family consists of a man and a woman, married, bringing up children as Christians.
OK it's not fashionable to say this.
I do not care.
It happens to be natural (OK another no-no) and right (OK - not very "cool" stuff this).
If you continue to neglect and rubbish the family and put all the weight of protecting and bringing up children on the State, you get aberrations and criminals out for a but of "fun". Punishment is not going to deal with this. (See all the posts above, including that, I am afraid, of your Grace).
We need Christians who support the family to stand up and be counted. We need Christians to found schools for Christian parents to send their children to. We need Christians to publicise the research material which states the obvious fact that a Mum and a Dad who love each other and stay together to bring up their children in a family do a lot better than the homeless little waifs who are cheated by selfish and worldly parents.
It is not just these two Jeremy Kyle wannabees that we should blame.
It is us.

12 August 2009 at 11:09  
Anonymous Anabaptist said...

You are certainly right, Mike Stallard, that punishment will not deal with the systemic breakdown in the family structure that is accelerating all around us, and which underlies many problems such as that exemplified in the Baby Peter case. Although punishment can play a small part (as can the taxation system), its main purpose is to affirm the state's determination (as God's servant) to avenge evil and to reward good (Romans 13). That's a blunt instrument, but necessary, and it does re-affirm the humanity of criminals by assuming that they are moral beings who make moral choices.

We need to get to the root cause of family breakdown, and that is neither easy nor simple. One thing's for sure: the more credence enjoyed by the Dawkins tendency and supported by the broadcast media, the less chance there will be of supporting the traditional family.

12 August 2009 at 11:37  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Welcome to Nu Labour’s so-called Ministry of Justice – Ministry of Injustice more like – where those that commit murder, rape and other violent crimes are given ludicrously short sentences and then released early as the prisons are stuffed full of foreign criminals who should have been deported. However, refuse to pay your TV license (Nu Labour propaganda tax) of try to have a debate about immigration (a ‘race hate’ crime) and you’ll be looking at the inside of a cell faster than you can say Jack Straw. Isn’t Nu Labour’s Marxist paradise on Earth wonderful?

I know, let’s vote Conservative next time. We know that “hug-a-hoody” Dave will be tough on crime, don’t we? Okay, maybe not. Well how about UKIP’s Nigel “I’ve claimed two million in EU expenses” Farage – surely he’d have respect for decent law-abiding tax payers? Well, perhaps not either.

Yes folks, it’s time to think outside the establishment’s box...

12 August 2009 at 11:44  
Anonymous Maturecheese said...

Why all the waffle? Just HANG THEM. It would be an easier death than baby Peter got as he died in agony due to a ruptured intestine I believe, brought on by a heavy blow.

As with everything that is wrong with our lawless society right now, the answer lies in accountability. If you commit a crime, you are held accountable, not given, or allowed to give, endless excuses for your actions.

12 August 2009 at 11:47  
Blogger Terry Hamblin said...

A deprived background is no excuse for bad behaviour, and the bad behaviour of these people is so outlandish that it needs a special response. Were the death penalty still in force no-one would object to it being applied to them, but we have no hope of it ever being restored. The best we can hope for is that life means life, or that some fellow inmate puts them out of their misery.

12 August 2009 at 12:35  
Blogger Frugal Dougal said...

The tragedy of modern liberal-socialism is that, had the death penalty not been done away with, these four would have been dispensed with quite humanely; now the two who killed Baby P are going to have to live with the probability, given the reach of the web, that some day we will come for them, to dispense proper justice. And it won't be humane.

12 August 2009 at 13:02  
OpenID jobtwenteewun1to3 said...

I suspect that many of the swivel eyed extremist liberal elite who have created today’s criminal justice system are totally insulated from real life in today’s degenerate British society. Not for them is there first hand knowledge or experience of the return home at late hours to discover a drug smoking criminal ransacking their bedroom or a teenage truant attempting to kick their heads into orbit. They do not wake first thing in the morning to experience the nauseating, gut wrenching pain of noticing smashed windscreen glass next to their car. It seems they fail to understand that the pseudo progressive approach to criminal justice issues is little more than weakness and complicity.

The good people of the United Kingdom have a contract with Her Majesty’s Government. It goes something like this: we, the people, as ordinary citizens surrender our right to exact vengeance and retribution at the hands of those who do us wrong. We will not act violently towards those who steal, cheat, abuse and act violently towards us. In return, our rulers will act corporately on our behalf. They will provide a police force with the objective of preventing crime. Where such a deterrent fails to achieve its objective, the police force have the right and the duty to pursue, arrest and bring to justice those who break the law. Once brought to justice, it is imperative that justice is indeed seen to be done.

The failure of the justice system to ensure that justice is seen to be done on so many occasions [such as the case of baby Peter] will inevitably lead to horrific future consequences. Once the contract between the people and the state has fully broken down in this manner, it is inevitable that society will again begin to exact its own vengeance and retribution on those that do us wrong. I am horrified by the prospect of mob justice or lynch law but am fully confident that such days are near where there is far more of this to come. I wonder however, whether much of the modern rationalisation of criminal behaviour is not somewhat sinister and with ulterior totalitarian motives in mind. It seems to me that society can not long tolerate a moral vacuum. Anarchy can not survive long, indeed as society hurtles that way we shall find that accompanying it will be a widespread desire for a political saviour of some sort to arise and address the ever decaying social conditions. Such will be the depth of pain experienced and the strength of feeling that society will undoubtedly accept all manner of restrictions of civil liberties and impositions of totalitarian brutalities in order that some semblance of order may be recovered. And so the liberal elites achieve their objectives of controlling every aspect of our lives.

May God have mercy on us.

12 August 2009 at 13:08  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

The ‘great’ Left-liberal social experiment has been underpinned by three ideas:

1. God is dead; therefore
2. do as you like; and
3. each individual is intrinsically good – therefore it is their environment which makes them bad (solution: fix environment through tax and spend).

Given the Left-liberal’s assumption that each individual is good, and the bad environment is being fixed through tax and spend policies, he goes onto assume that sentences should be reduced (discount for the bad environment) and fewer prisons will be required.

Meanwhile offending rates increase and he then has to address prison overcrowding. His solution: let violent offenders out of prison (on parole).

That action produces a further result: more violent offending.

His solution?

Millions of CCTV cameras.


Friday and Saturday night punch-up Britain documentaries are broadcast around the world.

That, for the Left-liberal, is social progress.

That, of course, is why the Germans refer to Britain as: Ape Island.

12 August 2009 at 13:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All we can ever hope for is a swift end.

12 August 2009 at 14:02  
Blogger peter_dtm said...

and if the history of these animals had been known at the time of the crime/trial how many more of the SS (Social Services) failures would have been taken to task ?

The enforcement of anonymity BENEFITED the local council even more than it benefited (how ?) those animals who should just be put down.

12 August 2009 at 14:50  
Blogger Constantly Furious said...

And, as Constantly Furious points out here, all of the incompetent idiots responsible for this happening, rather than sitting with their heads in their hands, are busily appearing at tribunals and in courts, demanding not only their jobs back but compensation for the indignities they have suffered. Dear Lord, how did it come to this?

12 August 2009 at 14:51  
Anonymous Brian E. said...

It seems that the only people who have gained from the human rights legislation are those that have abused it themselves and then want to be protected from their own deeds.
A basic principle of insurance has always been that you loose your cover if you bring the misfortune upon yourself (fail to lock the house when you go out and have property stolen - hard luck!).
The same principle should apply to the Human Rights Act - your rights should only be protected by the state if you have done nothing to cause people to want to infringe your rights. These evil people have done something to cause people to wish to kill them, its their fault, not the state's, and I see no reason why the state should be forced to protect them.
If they need guarding 24/7, the state should say "there's a cell for you in Pentonville, you can live there and once you have completed your sentence you are free to go, but if you do so, you're on your own". To suggest that they should get new identities and police protection is obscene when there are thousands of people around the country being terrorised by feral youths without any one giving thought to their human rights.

12 August 2009 at 16:07  
Blogger Unsworth said...

Your Grace is, rightly, disturbed at these latest interpretions of 'Justice' in a Court of Law.

For my part it is another and compelling reason to cleave to the hope of Justice Hereafter - as clearly there is no hope of it in the here and now.

12 August 2009 at 16:11  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

I imagine "maturecheese" would be out shouting for Barabbas!

What is required here is first a proper sentence as punishment. Then a period of rehabilitation.

The social services need to use Lord Lamings advice and link commonsense with an ability to challenge each action as to whether it was correct. All too often each case worker has gone along with the previous one. This is about positive criticsm and not about tripping people up.

With regard to the hangers and floggers, yes it gets the problem out of the way for you, but it is not the Christian way. The Shepherd requires lost souls. If you think for one moment the Shepherd thinks less of these two than He does of you, then you are sorely mistaken!

12 August 2009 at 17:19  
Anonymous not a machine said...

They still will not release the tape recordings Ian Brady made as he tortured his victims , still considered so horrific even now .

It is all very sad how child abuse lives to create another abuser.

I find it difficult to decide on capital punishment , what if they served there sentence and the did it again who would have commited the sin there .

to keep an inmate costs about £40k a year , so you can see why for some people prision isnt justice for murder .I think the woman has two other children , so how do you judge capital sentencing there

12 August 2009 at 17:38  
Blogger Miss Middle of Manchester said...

G Eagle Esq,

In response to your question on the law: It means that they will serve a minimum of 12 years, but that the sentence can be extended beyond that point if they are still seen as a danger to society in 12 years time. This 'extension' to the sentence would be reviewed regularly.

12 August 2009 at 17:53  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The other issue is what should the method of the death penalty be? Perhaps the more right wing of you would like to do a poll?

Throughout history, the following have been used:

1) Firing squad
2) Hanging
3) Guillotine /Head chopping off
4) Hung, Drawn and Quartered
5) Stoning
6) Lethal Injection
7) Electric Chair
8) Drowning
9) Burning at the stake

And of course the old biblical favourite:

10) Crucifixion

So which one will it be for all of you supposed Christians who are supposed to believe that only God is the one true judge and the one true path the salvation?

12 August 2009 at 18:19  
Anonymous G Eagle Esq said...

Mlle Middle


12 August 2009 at 18:36  
Anonymous Anabaptist said...

Well, Mr Anonymous, I am one of the 'supposed Christians' of whom you speak; though why you should say 'supposed' defeats me.

I'm not exactly sure what your point is meant to be. Are you suggesting that because we believe that God judges and metes out due deserts, then no human beings should do so?

Presumably, if that is your position, you also think that Christians (sorry, 'supposed Christians') should be opposed to any form of penal system. We should not support the use of imprisonments, fines, community service, etc. Is that really your point? If so, it is unusually dim. Because we believe that God will ultimately judge, we should be content to live in a world in which crime is neither deterred nor prevented -- because such things await the verdict in the next world?

On the other hand, if you do not maintain that 'supposed Christians' should be opposed to all forms of earthly penalty, please tell us why, on your rather obscure argument, you limit your strictures to capital punishment.

If you understood Christianity, you would know that it takes its authority from the Bible -- principally the New Testament. In the NT you will find us urged to obey rulers, to support them and pray for them to do their jobs properly, in order that we should be able to live peaceably. The NT describes the ruler (who 'bears the sword') as God's servant to administer vengeance on those who do evil, and reward those who do well.

I suspect that you are basing your ideas on a very flimsy understanding of Christianity and its founding documents. If I have mistaken your position, or have made any other error, I'm sure you'll be quick to let us know.

12 August 2009 at 18:56  
Blogger ZZMike said...

In my country, child-killers are very ill-received in prisons. These two would have a life-expectancy of about a week.

Doubtless, they will be well protected as guests of Her Majesty's government - maybe even bodyguards while in prison.

Anonymous (18:19): "So which one will it be for all of you supposed Christians who are supposed to believe that only God is the one true judge and the one true path the salvation?"

Nice try. We're merely trying to hurry these two along to that final judgement.

If you'd like to argue against the death penalty, cheap satire is not a winning tactic.

D Singh: "That, of course, is why the Germans refer to Britain as: Ape Island."

I don't get around German TV much, so I hadn't heard that one.

I'll stick with my current favorite: Formerly Great Britain.

12 August 2009 at 18:57  
Anonymous Maturecheese said...

2) Hanging

How many of you Righteous Christians would be so lenient if a member of your family had suffered such depraved abuse. Some crimes(sins) can only be forgiven by God, and some crimes are so heinous that only capital punishment can bring redemption

I think sometimes people mistake Liberalism for Christianity

12 August 2009 at 19:06  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Mr Anonymous

You display a common misunderstanding of OUR role (as humans) in the world, in relation to punishing crime.

We do not judge in eternal terms (as you say, that's for God) but we are entitled to dispense earthly justice, indeed we are required to, for the good ordering of the world we have been given (which we are required to do also) in the name of God according to what has been revealed to us of His purposes.

If you view the world sub specie aeternitatis there is nothing wrong with justly putting someone to death.
It is only if you don't believe in God (Absolute Truth) that you don't have the moral backbone to do the 'right thing' (or know what it is) and let God be the judge of the executed and the executioner - as He will be of all men at the last.

12 August 2009 at 19:10  
Anonymous Jim Bartlet (can't even be arsed signing in) said...

There are people waiting to be born, who's grandparents have not even been born yet, and they will be's true! And at the moment, I would hazard a guess that they are oblivious to this fact, which leads me on to the idea that I will be glad when it's all over to be honest.

The idea of meeting up with some of the finer specimens in life is too horrible for me, I am hoping for the oblivion of non existence. I certainly do not wish to be spiriting around the universe like some kind of royal gaseous excretion. Nor do I wish to be anywhere and have to endure the crap which emanates from other entities. Screw it all baby and let me go back to being sweet FA.

12 August 2009 at 19:21  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ZZ Mike ,

I was not being satirical. I merely wanted to see which form of execution people would plump for and whether or not it is out of bounds for a Christian to suggest these forms of punishment, especially Crucifixion?

Anabaptist. No you do not understand. I believe in a penal system, but one, which hopefully encourages reform and repentance to Jesus Christ, before they die. A life sentence should mean life. But these people should still have a chance to save their souls, by turning to Jesus Christ.

If they do not repent (and only Jesus Christ knows that), then sure, I believe that they will fry in the everlasting lake of burning fire/go to hell/eternal damnation.

Which is why I believe that they should at least be told about the gospel message and not executed.

12 August 2009 at 19:43  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Well I think they should be given a chance to repent , but that does not mean we are unable to pass judgement or sentance upon horrific crimes. In respect to the method, didn't we have hanging for murder and hung drawn and quatered for traitors? .

12 August 2009 at 19:48  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Sorry I meant to have written ........

"That does not mean we are unable to pass judgement or sentence upon people who commit horrific crimes, including the death penalty"

12 August 2009 at 19:51  
Anonymous Terry said...

The social problem in a nutshell:


Married natural parents are the least danger to their child.

Even a stepparent who marries the mother brings a degree of stability but is better than the transient boyfriend - this is what the NSPCC etc should be campaigning about.

12 August 2009 at 19:54  
Anonymous Dripping with sweat said...

I think the future lies in homosexuality. Buggger it all I say.

12 August 2009 at 20:09  
Blogger English Viking said...

A lot of posts seem to take the view that punishment of these kind of criminals would not stem the flow of criminality currently surging through our streets in the UK. I do not agree. As a Christian I am of the opinion that it is not Christlike to neglect the fatherless, nor to allow the guilty to go free. What is missing from our society today is the backbone to do something unpalatable, the stomach to see the literally thousands of executions necessary to get back some semblance of normality with regard to the relationship between the most awful crimes and the most necessary punishments. Give me the rope, I'll do it.

12 August 2009 at 20:09  
Anonymous non mouse said...

"And Hindley and Bradey would have been moved into a nice home, right next door to you." And...

If any Christian and Conservative neighbours got suspicious about the carryings-on, or looked like blowing the cover ...
then those neighbours would be slandered, defamed, maligned, and denied all right to survive -- driven out of the community in the freeze-out technique so favoured by the lefties. That's what Christians traditionally call "spiritual murder." I suppose they think it saves them from the wrath of the Law/law.

When society no longer has a law ... just a set of rules for helping to nurture criminality... well, I'm not sure that a death penalty is the answer; though it certainly would be better for the innocent than being manipulated into paranoia and suicide, or simply starvation, by the criminal society.

P.S. - I really hate the publication of detail about the crimes under discussion. I like to sleep at night, so I've always skipped reading them. I don't think, however, that it's sensible to provide criminals easy access to ideas.

12 August 2009 at 20:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The US Marine Corps had a motto after 9/11

God will judge Bin Laden.
Our task is to arrange the meeting!

12 August 2009 at 21:11  
Anonymous Dave J. said...

"With regard to the hangers and floggers, yes it gets the problem out of the way for you, but it is not the Christian way. The Shepherd requires lost souls. If you think for one moment the Shepherd thinks less of these two than He does of you, then you are sorely mistaken!"

Then by all means, let us hasten them on their way to their maker with all despatch.

As an American, and a prosecutor, I find the degree to which the once-proud British justice system has become one excuse after another for depravity to be both nauseating and tragic.

13 August 2009 at 02:01  
Blogger Jim Bartlet said...

Most things nauseating and tragic stem from the God Dam US of A.

A country full of fat burger eating slobs, and out of control corporation greed. I would much rather be here than in that shit hole of a nation, but it is a little bit reassuring that brainwashed prosecutors are stil locking up the dregs for now.

How and why the USA became the bloody cartoon nation that is responsible for dictating how everyone else calls the shots, is a complete mystery to me. I think you will find that one day someone will work this out.

13 August 2009 at 10:33  
Anonymous G Eagle Esq said...

Steady the Shippe, James, steady the Shippe

We greatly enjoy thy observations

BUT The UK hath more than his fair stock of "fat burger-eating slobs and out of control greed [on the part of the City AND the Revenue Authorities of her Britannic Majesty (God Bless Her)]

Ye Brits are hardly in a position to rush to pejorative animadversions about that Glorious Republic beyond the Pond, which in so many ways representeth the Best (and the Worst) of you Homo pSeudo Sapiens

AND doth not the very welcome & incisive Dave J have a point

The "the once-proud British justice system has become" a shambles of which this Rooinek is indeed ashamed

AND will you still prefer to be here, when the Courts start :

1. depriving Christian (& other) Folk of their Assets & Civil Rights for not favouring homosexuals in Employment

2. jailing Christians (& other Folk) for openly disAgreeing with this wRetched Government's strange enthusiasm for promoting homosexuality

I have the honour to remain your (& Dave's) obedient servant etc


wv = protting

What does that mean ?

13 August 2009 at 11:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Having read the British press coverage of this story these past few days, there seems more outrage (continuing!) at so-called torture of terrorists by the US government than of a defenceless baby by what you rightly called vermin.

When will Britons stand up and demand that their justice system be fixed and be about justice?

My own view is that capital punishment is the best form of justice for the perpetrators of such evil.

13 August 2009 at 11:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From David Lonsdale

Long before the Mosaic Law was given and which applies only to Jews, God told us what to do with those who murder their fellow man.
In Genesis 9 v. 5 and 6 he told Noah, " And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.

6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man,

by man shall his blood be shed;

for in the image of God has God made man.

Unlike the Mosaic law, this, the first known stated civil law, has never been rescinded and neither has the penalty, namely death at the hands of man.
If God has told us what to do in a certain circumstance we are fools to ignore Him. He initiated the death penalty for murder and confirmed the penalty in the Mosaic law.
Our society is now suffering the consequences of ignoring this very basic law from God.

13 August 2009 at 13:12  
Anonymous Simon said...

Anonymous has a selective list. Were we to have to choose we should also be offered

. boiling in oil
. breaking on the wheel
. garotting

and the truly gentlemanly drowning in a butt of malmsey.

On the principle that hanging (etc.) is too good for them, the more vicious of us might prefer to see twenty one years incarceration with a Labour spin doctor. So cruel, so unnatural.


13 August 2009 at 16:10  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

I tend to agree with Simon.I'm not in favour of capital punishment.Life imprisonment is more of a punishment... preferably incarcerated
with a religious zealot quoting reams and reams of biblical references and arcane linguistic
interpretations in ancient greek,
with spittle flecked rant of hell
fire and torments topped off with
riveting information like the number of broken graffiti tiles in
a turkish mosque and a regular update on the Pope's bathing habits, reruns of recorded conversations with the Pope and his cat and televised recordings
of the American Bishop Sheen.I think we have the person for the job in a place near you.....

13 August 2009 at 17:21  
Blogger ZZMike said...

non mouse: "P.S. - I really hate the publication of detail about the crimes under discussion. I like to sleep at night, so I've always skipped reading them. I don't think, however, that it's sensible to provide criminals easy access to ideas."

In my country, many states post, in the list of death row inmates, a short descrption of their crimes.

Most of these are horrific. I cannot understand anyone reading about these crimes and not realizing that there are men among us who are human in shape only. They have forfeited any claim to life - having taken one - or more - of ours.

To return to Anonymous's list of choices, there are two approaches:

1. We present the condemned with the list, from which he may choose one.

2.We go with the cheapest and most effective (like China, which prefers a bullet to the brain, followed by a bill for that bullet sent to the surviving relatives).

Jim Bartlet: "A country full of fat burger eating slobs, and out of control corporation greed."

There, there, take a deep breath, have a nice cup of tea, it'll be all right.

You've been reading way too many Marxist newspapers.

If you're really good, your government might not put a CCTV monitoring camera in your home.

Anonymous (13:12): "Unlike the Mosaic law, this, the first known stated civil law, has never been rescinded and neither has the penalty, namely death at the hands of man."

I assume then that you would also include stoning disobedient sons?

Lev 20:9 “‘If anyone curses his father and mother he must be put to death.

(See the other capital offenses in Leviticus.)

13 August 2009 at 18:32  
Anonymous justine said...

@ ZZ mike and David J
Any country that enforces capital
punishment is barbaric.It is shame
you should feel you have nothing to
be proud of.

13 August 2009 at 18:48  
Anonymous len said...

A country that murders innocents in the womb but shies away from dealing with depraved murderers has hardly any right to claim the moral high ground!

13 August 2009 at 19:19  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

So len tell me again which part of the new testament recommends the killing of depraved murderers.Is Britain the country you mean?

13 August 2009 at 19:34  
Anonymous len said...

I said dealing!

13 August 2009 at 19:46  
Anonymous len said...

It seems to me that the problem here is one of evil, these two (Connelly and Barker)are not the first to behave in this fashion and probably will not be the last. Ian Thomas - Mystery of Godliness.

"Satan, who is the father of lies (John 8:44), invaded the soul of man. .. The behavior mechanism in man designed by God to be the means whereby he should bear the divine image, was prostituted by the devil to become the means whereby man would bear the satanic image, for 'He that committeth sin is of the devil..." (I John 3:8)...takes his character from the evil one"24

"In the absence of the Holy Spirit instructing and controlling his mind and his emotions and his will with Truth, Satan, who is the father of lies,, usurped the sovereignty of God, and introduced this evil agency to pollute, corrupt, abuse and misuse his soul and so to twist and bend his will that the behavior mechanism in man, designed by God to be the means whereby he should bear the divine image, was prostituted by the devil to become the means whereby man would bear the satanic image..."
"...the first man, Adam, not only lost the Life of God, and ceased to be in the image of God, but his whole personality became available to the devil, to be exploited by him, producing a race of men whose ungodly a demonstration of 'the mystery of iniquity'."

13 August 2009 at 20:00  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

All very well blaming the Parents, what about the director and Programme planners at the BBC, ITV etc, they have a deliberate hand in all of this too.
Anti British Psychological Warfare

13 August 2009 at 23:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From David Lonsdale

To ZZMike

The laws in Leviticus are the Mosaic laws and do not apply to Gentiles. They were rescinded by the death and resurrection of Jesus. Read Acts 15 refering to the Council of Jerusalem. Only the ten commandments from that time remain valid in the New Testament
However, the law applied before Moses. When Adam and Eve ate of the tree they became aware of right and wrong, an awareness that was carried in their seed to succeeding generations.
The law regarding murder was the first stated civil law. It pre-dated Moses, it has never been rescinded and neither has the punishment.
Leviticus is irrelevant to the gentiles but, as you will see from Acts 15, sexual immorality remains a sin.

14 August 2009 at 07:54  
Anonymous Maturecheese said...

Anon 11:39

You hit the nail on the head there. We(New Labour Britain) seem more concerned about the concept of 'rights' than we do with justice and taking responsibility for ones own actions.

14 August 2009 at 10:38  
Blogger Manfarang said...

His name is Ian Brady.
Today's criminal justice system is as much the same as it was in the1960s. Note the case of Mary Bell.

14 August 2009 at 15:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From David Lonsdale

Justine said,

"Any country that enforces capital
punishment is barbaric."

This is the wisdom of men. God in his wisdom, on more than one occasion, has instructed us to execute murderers. Was God being barbaric in Genesis 9? Was it barbaric of God to impose the death penalty within the Mosaic law?
When Jesus confronted the accusers of the woman caught in adultery he did not rail against the penalty. He simply used the occasion to expose the hypocrisy of her accusers.
The writers of the New Testament lived in a society where execution for murder was a routine penalty. Not once did any of those writers condemn the practice.
Was God being barbaric when he instructed the Israelites to kill the Amalekites to the last man.
The wisdom of man has lead our nation into social chaos. Our only hope is to acknowledge the wisdom of God and to do as he says.

Arden Forester said,

"With regard to the hangers and floggers, yes it gets the problem out of the way for you, but it is not the Christian way. The Shepherd requires lost souls."

Are you suggesting that you know the Christian way better than God does. God wants the murderer to be presented with the certainty of imminent death. Perhaps he would have more chance of repenting under such circumstances than he would if he felt that he had years in gaol. The Christian way is to do as God says.

15 August 2009 at 08:20  
Anonymous justine said...

Christians follow the teachings of Christ,Son of God of the Holy Trinity which is God. (new testament).No.6 of the ten commandments.'Thou shalt not kill.'

15 August 2009 at 17:17  
Anonymous Dave J. said...

I'd submit there are far more "fat burger eating slobs" as a percentage of the population in the UK than here in the US. Your country has in large part become far more trivial, graceless celebrity-obsessed and ignorant than my own, and I say that as someone loves and admires the UK.

If the death penalty is barbaric, I'll take pre-civilized barbarism over post-civilized decadence. There are some crimes the commission of which simply constitute willful forfeiture of one's membership in the species. I have very little doubt you've never looked the dark violent side of humanity in the face as routinely as I have. I pray you never have to.

"No.6 of the ten commandments.'Thou shalt not kill.'"

The poetry of the King James Bible is not to be scoffed at, but this was a mistranslation. The original Hebrew is better stated as "thou shalt not murder."

To live is to kill, even if one is a vegan. One is reminded of the story in The Onion: "Plants Discovered to Feel Pain, Vegetarians Reduced to Eating Their Own Hair."

15 August 2009 at 18:33  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From David Lonsdale

To Justine

Dave J is correct. The translation of the 6th Commandment from the original Hebrew should read, "Thou shalt do no murder".

If it were otherwise then God would be contradicting himself when he said that murderers should be executed.

The God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are the same God, except that in the New Testament he introduced a new covenant for believers.
There are several examples in the OT of God instructing his people to kill other people. We only wonder at this because our wisdom is not God's wisdom.

18 August 2009 at 12:00  
Blogger Chris said...

Your Grace,

to many of your readers, the death penalty seems fair, then I wonder what state the country is in and reading comments like these I realise the relationship between Christianity and our country needs a revival!!!

I don't see that people like Connelly and Barker can easily be forgiven but evil does need to be addressed, simply thinking these people are poor and society needs to understand them, why? Is it helping and has it stopped atrocious acts?

6 December 2011 at 19:18  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older