Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Daggers

General News

By Daggers, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, st albans fox said:

 

If true, is it actually possible that this Hungarian company was created by Israeli intelligence and that this was pre planned years in advance in the event that Hezbollah and Israel came to full on war? 

👀 

 

 it’s now the most likely explanation 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
urban.spaceman

urban.spaceman

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Super_horns said:

Apparently BoJo is going to do an interview on the BBC promoting his book.

 

Is he going to apologise for breaking all the COVID rules his Government set?

"Sorry Boris, Kuenssberg had to pull out at the last minute to interview Starmer about the free tickets he got to an Arsenal game. The good news is we've re-hired Maitlis just to interview you for your culpability in the deaths of 250,000 people."

 

If only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Otis

Otis

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

"Sorry Boris, Kuenssberg had to pull out at the last minute to interview Starmer about the free tickets he got to an Arsenal game. The good news is we've re-hired Maitlis just to interview you for your culpability in the deaths of 250,000 people."

 

If only.

Go on, Explain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lionator

Lionator

Posted
Posted

Just going back to the Huw Edwards stuff, I don’t really see the point in jailing him. I think his sentence is reflective of the crime that he’s committed. If he had gone out and harmed a person, if he had created those images himself, if he had distributed them himself then fair enough, I would want a stronger punishment. However in this case you really have to dig deep and suggest what would justice actually be? Is Edwards a danger to children? I trust the judge in this case. 
 

I saw a video of Jim Davidson complaining about the sentence and it just struck me as completely mental, a bit like when the paedophile hunters eventually get turned out as paedophiles themselves. It’s a moral outrage thing. If we want a ‘throw away the key’ type of society then life will be miserable and we will suffer. If we want people to better themselves, to engage in psychological support and sort their mess out then society has to invest in them (not specifically Edwards, I find his litany of excuses in his defence counsel pretty pathetic and insulting tbh). 
 

My partner’s family had an interesting similar incident. They’re very much pro death penalty, throw away the key types. Then a couple of years ago, a family friend’s son was charged with rape and eventually convicted (so the evidence was clear), so when he I drunkenly suggested, does that mean that he should be killed by the state, they obviously went on the defensive. The point being acting on emotion in these cases is obviously a very bad thing. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Just going back to the Huw Edwards stuff, I don’t really see the point in jailing him. I think his sentence is reflective of the crime that he’s committed. If he had gone out and harmed a person, if he had created those images himself, if he had distributed them himself then fair enough, I would want a stronger punishment. However in this case you really have to dig deep and suggest what would justice actually be? Is Edwards a danger to children? I trust the judge in this case. 
 

I saw a video of Jim Davidson complaining about the sentence and it just struck me as completely mental, a bit like when the paedophile hunters eventually get turned out as paedophiles themselves. It’s a moral outrage thing. If we want a ‘throw away the key’ type of society then life will be miserable and we will suffer. If we want people to better themselves, to engage in psychological support and sort their mess out then society has to invest in them (not specifically Edwards, I find his litany of excuses in his defence counsel pretty pathetic and insulting tbh). 
 

My partner’s family had an interesting similar incident. They’re very much pro death penalty, throw away the key types. Then a couple of years ago, a family friend’s son was charged with rape and eventually convicted (so the evidence was clear), so when he I drunkenly suggested, does that mean that he should be killed by the state, they obviously went on the defensive. The point being acting on emotion in these cases is obviously a very bad thing. 

Exactly. Which is why the justice system needs to stay removed from emotion as much as possible.

 

Also, a fine demonstration of how some people lack empathy right up to the point events directly bash them over the head. Sometimes that's acceptable. Sometimes, it isn't.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MPH

MPH

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Just going back to the Huw Edwards stuff, I don’t really see the point in jailing him. I think his sentence is reflective of the crime that he’s committed. If he had gone out and harmed a person, if he had created those images himself, if he had distributed them himself then fair enough, I would want a stronger punishment. However in this case you really have to dig deep and suggest what would justice actually be? Is Edwards a danger to children? I trust the judge in this case. 
 

I saw a video of Jim Davidson complaining about the sentence and it just struck me as completely mental, a bit like when the paedophile hunters eventually get turned out as paedophiles themselves. It’s a moral outrage thing. If we want a ‘throw away the key’ type of society then life will be miserable and we will suffer. If we want people to better themselves, to engage in psychological support and sort their mess out then society has to invest in them (not specifically Edwards, I find his litany of excuses in his defence counsel pretty pathetic and insulting tbh). 
 

My partner’s family had an interesting similar incident. They’re very much pro death penalty, throw away the key types. Then a couple of years ago, a family friend’s son was charged with rape and eventually convicted (so the evidence was clear), so when he I drunkenly suggested, does that mean that he should be killed by the state, they obviously went on the defensive. The point being acting on emotion in these cases is obviously a very bad thing. 


 

I am usually very suspicious of judging a case solely on evidence supplied by the media, no matter what the crime. Very rarely are ALL facts found anywhere other than the court case itself. Not only should cases not be dealt with by emotions, but by examing the punishments handed out in similar cases. that way there can be no possible accusations of ‘trial by media’ OR ‘ he got away with it because he’s famous’’.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Parafox

Parafox

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

I like to think that if I was a murderer, I'd be a creative one.

 

More Wile E. Coyote than Hannibal Lector.

 

Police are still looking for the smart ass who painted a tunnel under this bridge... : r/streetartutopia

Is this your work?

Edited by Parafox
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zear0

Zear0

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Lionator said:

Just going back to the Huw Edwards stuff, I don’t really see the point in jailing him. I think his sentence is reflective of the crime that he’s committed. If he had gone out and harmed a person, if he had created those images himself, if he had distributed them himself then fair enough, I would want a stronger punishment. However in this case you really have to dig deep and suggest what would justice actually be? Is Edwards a danger to children? I trust the judge in this case. 
 

I saw a video of Jim Davidson complaining about the sentence and it just struck me as completely mental, a bit like when the paedophile hunters eventually get turned out as paedophiles themselves. It’s a moral outrage thing. If we want a ‘throw away the key’ type of society then life will be miserable and we will suffer. If we want people to better themselves, to engage in psychological support and sort their mess out then society has to invest in them (not specifically Edwards, I find his litany of excuses in his defence counsel pretty pathetic and insulting tbh). 
 

My partner’s family had an interesting similar incident. They’re very much pro death penalty, throw away the key types. Then a couple of years ago, a family friend’s son was charged with rape and eventually convicted (so the evidence was clear), so when he I drunkenly suggested, does that mean that he should be killed by the state, they obviously went on the defensive. The point being acting on emotion in these cases is obviously a very bad thing. 

If someone is getting sexual gratification from images of the rape and penetration of a 7-9 year old I'd suggest they are a danger to children personally. Whilst people are consuming and paying for this disgusting content, more of it will be produced so he's part of the industry and, by extension, harming these children. This isn't a victimless crime as you seem to be suggesting. As the magistrate said, "distributing child abuse images “perpetuates a cycle of abuse” and can lead to ongoing traumatisation of victims, impacting them throughout their lives and potentially making them vulnerable to further sexual abuse." Probation services also assigned him as a medium risk of reoffending. 

 

The typical back and forth about" justice" will always continue. I agree that if people are rehabilitated to become useful to society then that should be supported as much as possible, but I also disagree that punishments for crimes should, in effect be abolished. I found this attitude plain naive to be honest as a significant amount of malpractice in society stems from a complete lack of accountability and there needs to be consequences for your actions. 

 

I do disagree with what you've said in that the sentence was in any way commensurate to what he did, although I have and bias from having young children and find consumption of such material as worsen than most crimes people are serving custodial sentences for. Whilst he's now a registered sex offender, I would have hoped he'd have his Internet consumption monitored, as was suggested by the prosecution.

 

I do agree with your last point in that he shouldn't be stoned to death though. But I also don't think "loss of reputation" is a mitigating factor. If anything it should count against you. Long list of wealthy men getting away with stuff and this just seems to entrench it in the justice system if you're fall from grace is more severe than Frank the butcher. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dunge

Dunge

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Lionator said:

Just going back to the Huw Edwards stuff, I don’t really see the point in jailing him. I think his sentence is reflective of the crime that he’s committed. If he had gone out and harmed a person, if he had created those images himself, if he had distributed them himself then fair enough, I would want a stronger punishment. However in this case you really have to dig deep and suggest what would justice actually be? Is Edwards a danger to children? I trust the judge in this case. 
 

I saw a video of Jim Davidson complaining about the sentence and it just struck me as completely mental, a bit like when the paedophile hunters eventually get turned out as paedophiles themselves. It’s a moral outrage thing. If we want a ‘throw away the key’ type of society then life will be miserable and we will suffer. If we want people to better themselves, to engage in psychological support and sort their mess out then society has to invest in them (not specifically Edwards, I find his litany of excuses in his defence counsel pretty pathetic and insulting tbh). 
 

My partner’s family had an interesting similar incident. They’re very much pro death penalty, throw away the key types. Then a couple of years ago, a family friend’s son was charged with rape and eventually convicted (so the evidence was clear), so when he I drunkenly suggested, does that mean that he should be killed by the state, they obviously went on the defensive. The point being acting on emotion in these cases is obviously a very bad thing. 

I think suspended sentence is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paninistickers

Paninistickers

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Zear0 said:

I'd suggest they are a danger to children

I was quite surprised that his pre sentencing report suggested he had a 'medium' chance of reoffending. You'd think any normal person who'd somehow got sucked into a rabbit hole  would be so burned, so ashamed, so sorry there'd be a zero chance if reoffending 

 

However, that all said, as a first time offender most people have a right to the benefit of doubt and to be thrown a chance. I DO happen to think the social isolation he'll have for the rest of his life should be factored in to his sentencing. 

 

If and how he rebuilds himself will be kinda interesting. Rolf and Stuart Hall were ancient and don't really have long to suffer the public wrath. Edwards has a good 30 years in all probability. It'll be interesting to see if, where and how he can rebuild. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...