Edlington brothers attack

#2
Sentencing was correct IMHO. Until the HR act is ditched or amended to allow the punishment of [in this case, the father][the police say there is no action they can take] then this sort of thing will be repeated. The father should be birched and imprisoned in a harsh regime.
 
#4
I wouldn't blame the state, but I would certainly blame Doncaster Council.

The way in which the social services department was run (or should I say, not run) is endemic of the attitude of the people here, starting with Mayor Winter at the very top, who when questioned about the seven deaths in seven years, stated that it was nothing to do with him as he wasn't running the department.

In the Edlington case specifically, these kids have been known for years and were failed by any & every authority in the area. They won't be the last either.

I just hope that criminal charges follow the publication of the report, a report which the council fought in the courts to have it silenced - spending my money on hiding their incompetence.

Am I angry about this? Not at all - I'm incandescent with rage.
 
#6
'Lessons have been learned' is Govt speak for 'we cocked up but no-one is going to be blamed or held to account'.

I fully agree that these two lads probably have been let down by systems that should have protected them. What will this mean? Most likely more guidelines and procedures for social workers, who are probably struggling to cope as it is. A pretty standard response to create the illusion that 'lessons have been learned' and that 'we have taken action to help prevent blah blah blah'.

What is needed is for those who deal with such cases to to their jobs properly and not just rely on procedures. Introducing new procedures tends to make things harder for those involved, not easier.
 
#7
Hairy_Fairy said:
hydracobra said:
Just been announced, they have to serve a minimum of 5yrs each
Indefinite sentences - which hopefully means a very long time.
Like the cunts who killed Jamie Bugler? Now living in luxury in Australia courtesy of the British Government. I would personally shoot the little fucking cunts myself with no qualms whatsoever.
 
#8
Fallschirmjager said:
Hairy_Fairy said:
hydracobra said:
Just been announced, they have to serve a minimum of 5yrs each
Indefinite sentences - which hopefully means a very long time.
Like the cunts who killed Jamie Bugler? Now living in luxury in Australia courtesy of the British Government. I would personally shoot the little fucking cunts myself with no qualms whatsoever.
SHooting is too good for them
 
#9
Fallschirmjager said:
Hairy_Fairy said:
hydracobra said:
Just been announced, they have to serve a minimum of 5yrs each
Indefinite sentences - which hopefully means a very long time.
Like the cunts who killed Jamie Bugler? Now living in luxury in Australia courtesy of the British Government. I would personally shoot the little fucking cunts myself with no qualms whatsoever.
They could have sent them to somewhere miserable couldn't they. But no, Oz ffs!!!!
Have you noticed that the reporting on this case is leaning towards the whole 'its not their fault' thing?
 
#10
johnboyzzz said:
Fallschirmjager said:
Hairy_Fairy said:
hydracobra said:
Just been announced, they have to serve a minimum of 5yrs each
Indefinite sentences - which hopefully means a very long time.
Like the cunts who killed Jamie Bugler? Now living in luxury in Australia courtesy of the British Government. I would personally shoot the little fucking cunts myself with no qualms whatsoever.
SHooting is too good for them

Make their last hour on earth so unbearably miserable, they'll be begging for the bullet in the back of the head. We need to rid ourselves of this rediculous human rights act, where's the rights for the victim or the deterant. Yet again others are being blamed, the parents, the system, etc, that may well be, but the parents and the system didn't force these 2 oxygen thieves to carry out what they did. They're obviously a future threat to anyone who has the misfortune to come into contact with them. I can't think of one good excuse for these 2 to still be alive and I don't give a toss about the age, what they did was pure evil and need to be dealt with accordingly, not mothered, supported, educated.......just shot, pure and sime.
 
#11
the evil little c unts and their twisted parents should be sandpapered and sprinkled with vinegar every day for the remainder of their lives.

I don't care who let who down. A basic upbringing in even the hardest of environments should still include knowledge of right and wrong. Social services appear to have done a spectacularly bad job here, but ultimately respnsibility lies with the foul parents and their evil spawn.

I am no nazi but there is a growing argument for the compulsory sterilisation of a sector of our society.
 
#12
762baynet said:
Fallschirmjager said:
Hairy_Fairy said:
hydracobra said:
Just been announced, they have to serve a minimum of 5yrs each
Indefinite sentences - which hopefully means a very long time.
Like the cunts who killed Jamie Bugler? Now living in luxury in Australia courtesy of the British Government. I would personally shoot the little fucking cunts myself with no qualms whatsoever.
They could have sent them to somewhere miserable couldn't they. But no, Oz ffs!!!!
Revenge plan is for them to eventually marry Australian's..........that's punishment enough, they'll be begging to be hanged.
 
#13
762baynet said:
Fallschirmjager said:
Hairy_Fairy said:
hydracobra said:
Just been announced, they have to serve a minimum of 5yrs each
Indefinite sentences - which hopefully means a very long time.
Like the cunts who killed Jamie Bugler? Now living in luxury in Australia courtesy of the British Government. I would personally shoot the little fucking cunts myself with no qualms whatsoever.
They could have sent them to somewhere miserable couldn't they. But no, Oz ffs!!!!
Have you noticed that the reporting on this case is leaning towards the whole 'its not their fault' thing?
I always thought that there were four other people that should have stood in the dock, their parents. Thompson and Venables are still in the UK, the whole Austraila thing was an internet myth.
 
#14
BigT said:
762baynet said:
Fallschirmjager said:
Hairy_Fairy said:
hydracobra said:
Just been announced, they have to serve a minimum of 5yrs each
Indefinite sentences - which hopefully means a very long time.
Like the cunts who killed Jamie Bugler? Now living in luxury in Australia courtesy of the British Government. I would personally shoot the little fucking cunts myself with no qualms whatsoever.
They could have sent them to somewhere miserable couldn't they. But no, Oz ffs!!!!
Have you noticed that the reporting on this case is leaning towards the whole 'its not their fault' thing?
I always thought that there were four other people that should have stood in the dock, their parents. Thompson and Venables are still in the UK, the whole Austraila thing was an internet myth.
Hasn't one of them joined up?...
 
#15
I've just been reading the BBC report on the centres that they will be sent to: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/8467849.stm

While I agree with the view that something needs to be done to turn around the behaviour of these children rather than just locking them up and not rehabilitating them, and acknowledging that it will cost more than sending them to the local comprehensive, my jaw hit the ground at two statistics in the story.

- Firstly that it costs £500 per child A DAY for the centre mentioned (36 children).

- Secondly, that, after what one presumes is the best treatment that money can buy (at that price), there is still a re-offending rate of 43% within six months - (which the journo writing the piece seems to think is acceptable!)

To put that into perspective, if 36 "residents" spend 12 months in this home, (likely, as these are all in for major offences), at at cost to the taxpayer of £6,570,000, within six months 15 of them will have committed further offences. Is this cost effective care, or is it a gravy train for somebody?
 
#16
Trying to get my head around the difference between Justice and Revenge, and remembering a case in Stockport in Victorian times, I found this.

Sobering stuff, and a lot less knee-jerk than we get in modern times.

http://philobiblon.co.uk/?p=3038

The Victorian – a more humane age…
A book on child murderers – there are two obvious genres in which this might fit: the quick exploitative “true crime” paperback, whipped after some horrible crime has excited public attention, or the deep and impenetrable psychological study, expounding the author’s post-Freudian, post-Jungian, post-any-sense-at-all theory.

Happily, Loretta Loach’s The Devil’s Children is neither of these. Instead, it is a balanced, sensible account survey of the history of the treatment of children who’ve killed in British history. It’s not a comprehensive study, but it seems to be a solidly enough researched one, and the good news is that while some of the early accounts of the judicial system’s treatment of children is harrowing, it is mostly a tale of increasing, and surprisingly early, humane treatment of children who were understood to be something other than pure evil or simply mini-adult killers.

At least that’s until you get to the two most famous modern cases, that of Mary Bell, 11, who killed two young boys in 1968, and Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, who killed James Bulger in 1993, a case that provoked a degree of hysteria and a wave of vindictive public and judicial spite that the 19th century could hardly have matched.

In the Thompson and Venables case, Loach reports the officer leading the investigation as saying that the killing of James Bulger was “unique” because of the age of the killers. Yet there had been, in the 25 years since Mary Bell, at least 14 cases of children murdering children.

Loach doesn’t exactly say so, but it is pretty clear that her aim in writing the book is education of the public, to understand that children who kill are neither extraordinarily rare, nor extraordinarily evil. Indeed she demonstrates how children usually do not have a grasp of the true nature of death, particularly its finality, until well into adolescence, so juvenile cannot, she argues, form an intent to murder in the same sense as an adult. (Although it is surprising that in a book published this year she didn’t mention the recent work on how children brought up in abusive, high-stress environments fail to develop impulse control.)

Her first case is horrific to modern eyes from the behaviour of the adults: that of four-year-old Katherine Passeavant who was kept in St Albans jail in 1249 for more than a month, after pushing another child into boiling water by opening a door too quickly – which could surely only have been an accident. Her father, however, wrote to the king, and perhaps surprisingly the local sheriff was ordered to release her.

In the same century an 11-year-old boy, Thomas of Hordleigh in Maidstone Kent, was found to have killed a five-year-old with a hatchet as she tried to stop him stealing her family’s bread: he was sentenced to death, in large part because he tried to hide the body, seen as a sign of “heinous malice”. That sentence seems to have been carried out in 1299, but generally even in this period it seems a King’s pardon was often granted, although it might take a year or so of the child being in jail before it arrived.

By the 14th century there had been an advance – it was legally agreed that while a child under seven might be convicted, he or she should be immediately pardoned “because he knoweth not of good or evil”.

Two centuries on, this boundary was moving to something more reasonable: Sir Edward Coke, the renown Elizabethan jurist, believed that both “madmen” and children under 14 could not be thought of as having full discretion or understanding. Yet in 1629 a boy of nine was hanged for burning two barns “it appearing that he had malice, revenge, craft and cunning”. It was up to the jury to decide the child’s state of development. (Attempts at concealment were often fatal, being judged as showing understanding of the wrongness of the action.)

That was to be the death of William York, a poorhouse boy who had been working as a servant who was aged 10 when on 5 August 1748 he was tried for the death of a five-year-old girl who had been in his charge. He had hidden the body in a dungheap and admitted the crime, under pressure. Nineteen villagers petitioned for mercy, to their credit, and the inevitable capital sentence was postponed for three sessions while legal experts conferred, but in the end the sentence was carried out.

It is often proclaimed that child murderers and their acts are a sign of some modern decadence, yet there’s a case that Loach has uncovered that shows many aspects of human life (and you’d have to strong suspect the abuse to which children have been subjected) haven’t changed. In 1778 three girls aged ten, nine and eight, were tried at the Huntingdon Lent Assizes for the murder of a three year old. A contemporary record reports: “The manner in which they committed this act was by fixing three pins on the end of a stick, which they thrust into the child’s body, which lacerated the private parts and soon turned to a mortification of which she languished for a few days and then died.” The jury found the girls not guilty by reason of being unable to understand the nature of their act.

Yet it was not until 1835 that the decisive case regarding children and capital punishment came: William Wild, 13, sold into virtual slavery as a farm servant, and mocked for doing work for “maidens”, drowned a three-year-old and an 18-month-old that he had been supposed to be fetching from the field where they were playing. Wild’s death sentence was commuted to transportation to Tasmania for life. (Loach follows his fate, which wasn’t a happy one, but it was still a humanitarian advance from the wrenching case of John Bell, aged 14, who had been hung in 1832.)

And so it was that by 1861, in a case with strong echoes of the 20th-century Bulger one, when two eight year olds, Peter Barratt and James Bradley, in Stockport, abducted a boy of two and a half, stripped him naked, beat him with a stick, weighed his body down and then flung him into water to drown, the public response was moderate. The Times explained it would have been “absurd and monstrous” for them to be treated as though they were adult murderers.

Perhaps the late 20th century, had it been able to take the long perspective of Loach’s book, might have been able to be so moderate and humane.
 
#17
There are many complex reasons why this happened and they can be summed in one word......DONCASTER.

The place is full of in bred, piggy eyed, adidas wearing, chavish oiks and their orange faced breeding partners who live on a diet of Iceland budget sausages and Sunny D with their feral offspring running round making the place look like something that would scare the shyte out of Tolkien and Charle Dickens.

If you built a wall round the pit villages of South Yorkshire and gassed the inhabitants like badgers then the gene pool would improve and the crime rate would drop to near zero.
 

Bowmore_Assassin

MIA
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#18
Fallschirmjager said:
Hairy_Fairy said:
hydracobra said:
Just been announced, they have to serve a minimum of 5yrs each
Indefinite sentences - which hopefully means a very long time.
Like the cunts who killed Jamie Bugler? Now living in luxury in Australia courtesy of the British Government. I would personally shoot the little fucking cunts myself with no qualms whatsoever.
I'd buy the rounds for you seeing as you got in first.
 
#19
CaptainWillard said:
BigT said:
762baynet said:
Fallschirmjager said:
Hairy_Fairy said:
hydracobra said:
Just been announced, they have to serve a minimum of 5yrs each
Indefinite sentences - which hopefully means a very long time.
Like the cunts who killed Jamie Bugler? Now living in luxury in Australia courtesy of the British Government. I would personally shoot the little fucking cunts myself with no qualms whatsoever.
They could have sent them to somewhere miserable couldn't they. But no, Oz ffs!!!!
Have you noticed that the reporting on this case is leaning towards the whole 'its not their fault' thing?
I always thought that there were four other people that should have stood in the dock, their parents. Thompson and Venables are still in the UK, the whole Austraila thing was an internet myth.
Hasn't one of them joined up?...

Yes. One of them served in an infantry battalion.
 
#20
When a dog attacks a person and causes any damage it is inevitably put down , the reason being that having done it once there will always be a likelyhood it will do it again , surely the same should apply to these two together with their parents?
They are only children? No they are sadistic thugs and should be dealt with accordingly
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads