correct me if i`m wrong but i think it all started with the star (not todays daily star )
and jack the ripper
Meet Swingers
Entertainment
Latest Members
Fun and Games
Information
Shopping
Site Stats
- Members:
- 1,389,800
- Online Now:
- 1,999
- Msgs Sent:
- 157,443,049
- Photo Ads:
- 745,626
- User Pics:
- 579,536
- Video Chat:
- 170
I think the sensationalisation of the jack the ripper case was on the whole an exception rather than the rule at the time....the same holds true for other notable cases during most of the last century.On the whole the press (apart from a few scandal sheets)held true to the concept of a responsible media,then in the 80's press ownership began to change and perhaps coincidentally so did the papers belief in their duties to the public...I'll demur from making any connection with the change in government
Staggerlee_BB wrote:
The repeated insinuation that I have nothing is both tiresome and incorrect.....if you have no arguement continue to troll
kentswingers777 wrote:
Yes the very people you despise.
As I have said already....easy to hate the Capitalist when you have nothing.
Staggerlee_BB wrote:
ah the joys of western capitalist democracy
ah the joys of western capitalist democracy
Yes the very people you despise.
As I have said already....easy to hate the Capitalist when you have nothing.
The repeated insinuation that I have nothing is both tiresome and incorrect.....if you have no arguement continue to troll
kentswingers777 wrote:
Staggerlee_BB wrote:
The repeated insinuation that I have nothing is both tiresome and incorrect.....if you have no arguement continue to troll
kentswingers777 wrote:
Yes the very people you despise.
As I have said already....easy to hate the Capitalist when you have nothing.
Staggerlee_BB wrote:
ah the joys of western capitalist democracy
ah the joys of western capitalist democracy
Yes the very people you despise.
As I have said already....easy to hate the Capitalist when you have nothing.
The repeated insinuation that I have nothing is both tiresome and incorrect.....if you have no arguement continue to troll
i always thought staggs was an anarchist,but your posting of a pic rather than a coherent arguement has proved me wrong.
Well if we're using pictures.....here's one from the greatest exponent of your beloved system the U.S.of A.....you'll note the healthy complexion and cheerfull nature of the children enjoying the benefits of such a wonderfull political philosophy
UncBoy, can I type!- Joined:
- 18 Aug 2006
- Posts:
- 123
- Location:
- Sunny Dudley in the
beautiful West
Midlands:-)
Staggerlee_BB wrote:
8<----snippage----
Huntley is part of our society (like it or not)and is therefore as worthy and deserving as anyone else within it
8<----snippage----
Huntley is part of our society (like it or not)and is therefore as worthy and deserving as anyone else within it
Society is made up of individuals, each with their own beliefs. Society is a living thing and changes and develops over time. Often the feelings of a society run contrary to the laws established at an earlier point in that society's development which is what leads to laws being changed, removed from the statutes or to new laws being drafted.
Currently the law states that there is a duty of care by prison officers to offenders like Huntley. That does not mean he is either 'worthy' or 'deserving'; he is entitled, as it is simply a fact of law. Whether society would currently agree that he should be entitled is moot, though I believe it would be a very close call if there was a referendum.
While I agree that branding people as paedophiles or murderers is emotive and can be unhelpful and distracting, it is at least accurate. Suggesting that they are worthy and deserving is not IMO.
Unc_Mids wrote:
Society is made up of individuals, each with their own beliefs. Society is a living thing and changes and develops over time. Often the feelings of a society run contrary to the laws established at an earlier point in that society's development which is what leads to laws being changed, removed from the statutes or to new laws being drafted.
Currently the law states that there is a duty of care by prison officers to offenders like Huntley. That does not mean he is either 'worthy' or 'deserving'; he is entitled, as it is simply a fact of law. Whether society would currently agree that he should be entitled is moot, though I believe it would be a very close call if there was a referendum.
While I agree that branding people as paedophiles or murderers is emotive and can be unhelpful and distracting, it is at least accurate. Suggesting that they are worthy and deserving is not IMO.
Staggerlee_BB wrote:
8<----snippage----
Huntley is part of our society (like it or not)and is therefore as worthy and deserving as anyone else within it
8<----snippage----
Huntley is part of our society (like it or not)and is therefore as worthy and deserving as anyone else within it
Society is made up of individuals, each with their own beliefs. Society is a living thing and changes and develops over time. Often the feelings of a society run contrary to the laws established at an earlier point in that society's development which is what leads to laws being changed, removed from the statutes or to new laws being drafted.
Currently the law states that there is a duty of care by prison officers to offenders like Huntley. That does not mean he is either 'worthy' or 'deserving'; he is entitled, as it is simply a fact of law. Whether society would currently agree that he should be entitled is moot, though I believe it would be a very close call if there was a referendum.
While I agree that branding people as paedophiles or murderers is emotive and can be unhelpful and distracting, it is at least accurate. Suggesting that they are worthy and deserving is not IMO.
That is nicely written, I like that a lot
I shall stand by my statement .....and just ask that you consider context
Unc_Mids wrote:
While I agree that branding people as paedophiles or murderers is emotive and can be unhelpful and distracting, it is at least accurate. Suggesting that they are worthy and deserving is not IMO.
While I agree that branding people as paedophiles or murderers is emotive and can be unhelpful and distracting, it is at least accurate. Suggesting that they are worthy and deserving is not IMO.
Accurate being the operative word here.
I wonder how many sad loners out there at this moment in time,are actually writing a letter to this scum bag murderer, as we type?
I really despair at how easily someone like him, can in some peoples eyes become a victim. Not a victim but a killer of children, there is a difference though some could not see that difference if it appeared from their arse.
kentswingers777 wrote:
Accurate being the operative word here.
I wonder how many sad loners out there at this moment in time,are actually writing a letter to this scum bag murderer, as we type?
I really despair at how easily someone like him, can in some peoples eyes become a victim. Not a victim but a killer of children, there is a difference though some could not see that difference if it appeared from their arse.
Unc_Mids wrote:
While I agree that branding people as paedophiles or murderers is emotive and can be unhelpful and distracting, it is at least accurate. Suggesting that they are worthy and deserving is not IMO.
While I agree that branding people as paedophiles or murderers is emotive and can be unhelpful and distracting, it is at least accurate. Suggesting that they are worthy and deserving is not IMO.
Accurate being the operative word here.
I wonder how many sad loners out there at this moment in time,are actually writing a letter to this scum bag murderer, as we type?
I really despair at how easily someone like him, can in some peoples eyes become a victim. Not a victim but a killer of children, there is a difference though some could not see that difference if it appeared from their arse.
If it appeared from their arse would they need a mirror to see it?
awayman wrote:
If it appeared from their arse would they need a mirror to see it?
kentswingers777 wrote:
Accurate being the operative word here.
I wonder how many sad loners out there at this moment in time,are actually writing a letter to this scum bag murderer, as we type?
I really despair at how easily someone like him, can in some peoples eyes become a victim. Not a victim but a killer of children, there is a difference though some could not see that difference if it appeared from their arse.
Unc_Mids wrote:
While I agree that branding people as paedophiles or murderers is emotive and can be unhelpful and distracting, it is at least accurate. Suggesting that they are worthy and deserving is not IMO.
While I agree that branding people as paedophiles or murderers is emotive and can be unhelpful and distracting, it is at least accurate. Suggesting that they are worthy and deserving is not IMO.
Accurate being the operative word here.
I wonder how many sad loners out there at this moment in time,are actually writing a letter to this scum bag murderer, as we type?
I really despair at how easily someone like him, can in some peoples eyes become a victim. Not a victim but a killer of children, there is a difference though some could not see that difference if it appeared from their arse.
If it appeared from their arse would they need a mirror to see it?
im still trying to work out how flexible someone would need to be to do that
Whilst I feel that those in prison should be afforded protection I feel no great sadness for the death of this man and I really don't think the country should be held responsible for any injury sustained at the hands of fellow inmates.
The dichotomy is, the "protection" afforded is supposed to be for the benefit of the public from those who choose to display unacceptable behaviour in the eyes of society, not the public providing the protection....
Or am I being too harsh on these poor unfortunate souls who have lost their way in life?
Or am I being too harsh on these poor unfortunate souls who have lost their way in life?
