adios 717 Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 (edited) Well not locking him away would say volumes to would-be hoaxers, wouldn't it? Without getting too philosphical about crime, order and jurisprudence, I believe people should pay for their crimes, yes. Usually this has the added bonus of deterrence and allows for rehabilitation. If this man is truely repentful for what he has done, he should welcome the sentence tbh. Btw, to put this into perspective, one of my mates once got done for setting a fire alarm off during a school exam. He got 2 years in a young offenders institution. On the basis of that, this hoaxer would die in jail. 108338[/snapback] I'm guessing that if hoaxers stopped to consider the repercussions of their actions they wouldn't do it in the first place. If they're considering that lives could be lost due to their actions but at least they won't be affected then I'd happily advocate a bullet in the head, to be honest. I don't feel too comfortable with punishing people purely on the basis of us getting our pound of flesh. It's a real shame what happened to your mate, must have been a repeat offender, did it do any good? I reckon Crime & Punishment is something we should get seriously philosophical about. Edited March 20, 2006 by DotBum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Anyone actually read 'Crime and Punishment'? I keep meaning to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Anyone actually read 'Crime and Punishment'? I keep meaning to. 108342[/snapback] It's sitting on my shelf, does that count? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Anyone actually read 'Crime and Punishment'? I keep meaning to. 108342[/snapback] It's sitting on my shelf, does that count? 108343[/snapback] No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22405 Posted March 20, 2006 Author Share Posted March 20, 2006 Well not locking him away would say volumes to would-be hoaxers, wouldn't it? Without getting too philosphical about crime, order and jurisprudence, I believe people should pay for their crimes, yes. Usually this has the added bonus of deterrence and allows for rehabilitation. If this man is truely repentful for what he has done, he should welcome the sentence tbh. Btw, to put this into perspective, one of my mates once got done for setting a fire alarm off during a school exam. He got 2 years in a young offenders institution. On the basis of that, this hoaxer would die in jail. 108338[/snapback] I'm guessing that if hoaxers stopped to consider the repercussions of their actions they wouldn't do it in the first place. If they're considering that lives could be lost due to their actions but at least they won't be affected then I'd happily advocate a bullet in the head, to be honest. I don't feel too comfortable with punishing people purely on the basis of us getting our pound of flesh. It's a real shame what happened to your mate, must have been a repeat offender, did it do any good? I reckon Crime & Punishment is something we should get seriously philosophical about. 108340[/snapback] Welll I lied a bit, he wasn't really a mate, just someone I knew (from another school). From the little I knew of him he actually seemed OK, I have no idea if he had previous or not but I assume so. Don't know what happened to him, but it seemed incredibly harsh to me at the time. Yes, we could certainly get philosophical but it's Monday, I've got a headache, and I'm counting down the minutes until Leazes/HTL joins in and it becomes a slagfest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Anyone actually read 'Crime and Punishment'? I keep meaning to. 108342[/snapback] It's sitting on my shelf, does that count? 108343[/snapback] No. 108344[/snapback] Intellectual snobbery tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 4074 Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Anyone actually read 'Crime and Punishment'? I keep meaning to. 108342[/snapback] My interpretation of it is that it is more about mental illness than actually crime and punishment. Especially as the word crime does not translate into russian. The literal translation was transgression. But it doesnt scan as well. Rodya to me is suffering serious mental illness probably paranoid schizophrenia. Anyway Dostoyevsky could be seen as just bitter towards money lenders cos he spent trime in jail for being a debtor. Also to my knowledge statute of limitations is an american thing we have none in British law. Also I am more than happy to send people to prison purely for punishment purposes if they will learn nothoing from the experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Welll I lied a bit, he wasn't really a mate, just someone I knew (from another school). From the little I knew of him he actually seemed OK, I have no idea if he had previous or not but I assume so. Don't know what happened to him, but it seemed incredibly harsh to me at the time. Yes, we could certainly get philosophical but it's Monday, I've got a headache, and I'm counting down the minutes until Leazes/HTL joins in and it becomes a slagfest. 108347[/snapback] That's more like it, I didn't have you down as a Borstal boy, for some reason. You would imagine that sort of thing is more likely to fuck up a life than solve any problems, for what seems like reasonably ordinary boyhood mischief. I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate, although I do believe some of these more controversial ideas would work better than what we've got. I don't see the point in getting involved in debate to point out how right you are and how wrong everyone else is, it's not like we're actually going to change anything on an internet forum (or anywhere else for that matter). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 (edited) I agree with Renton but I thought Rob might just be trying to wind-up Leazes tbh. 108336[/snapback] No - I really think this the sort of person who shouldn't be inside - he's an idiot but I really don't see what good adding another body to our overcrowded prisons is going to achieve and since its been years since he did it originally i can't see how punishment NOW is going to stop other idiots doing the same in the past or in the future Edited March 20, 2006 by Rob W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22405 Posted March 20, 2006 Author Share Posted March 20, 2006 Welll I lied a bit, he wasn't really a mate, just someone I knew (from another school). From the little I knew of him he actually seemed OK, I have no idea if he had previous or not but I assume so. Don't know what happened to him, but it seemed incredibly harsh to me at the time. Yes, we could certainly get philosophical but it's Monday, I've got a headache, and I'm counting down the minutes until Leazes/HTL joins in and it becomes a slagfest. 108347[/snapback] That's more like it, I didn't have you down as a Borstal boy, for some reason. You would imagine that sort of thing is more likely to fuck up a life than solve any problems, for what seems like reasonably ordinary boyhood mischief. I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate, although I do believe some of these more controversial ideas would work better than what we've got. I don't see the point in getting involved in debate to point out how right you are and how wrong everyone else is, it's not like we're actually going to change anything on an internet forum (or anywhere else for that matter). 108351[/snapback] Well I was thinking (on a related note) the other day about how my view points on crime and punishment are becoming more right wing and conservative. Believe me, this horrifies me, but I can't help swaying to the idea of much more severe punishments for some of the scumbags that live round here. I'm just reacting to the environment I live in I guess, sometimes I really think I need to get away from this place before I become something I hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22405 Posted March 20, 2006 Author Share Posted March 20, 2006 I agree with Renton but I thought Rob might just be trying to wind-up Leazes tbh. 108336[/snapback] No - I really think this the sort of person who shouldn't be inside - he's an idiot but I really don't see what good adding another body to our overcrowded prisons is going to achieve and since its been years since he did it originally i can't see how punishment NOW is going to stop other idiots doing the same in the past or in the future 108352[/snapback] I completely disagree. But out of interest, what do you think should have happened to him if he was caught red handed 25 years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 30 days to 3 months is pretty standard I believe for this sort of thing Of course since "he has got away with it" for 25 years you have to assume that hundreds or even thousands of people have been encouraged by his example (and the fact he was never caught) to phone the police up and do similar things.......... maybe I missed that Maybe no-one else was "inspired" to do the same Maybe he's just an idiot and sending him down will have no more effect on the GBP than his years "on the run" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22405 Posted March 20, 2006 Author Share Posted March 20, 2006 30 days to 3 months is pretty standard I believe for this sort of thing Of course since "he has got away with it" for 25 years you have to assume that hundreds or even thousands of people have been encouraged by his example (and the fact he was never caught) to phone the police up and do similar things.......... maybe I missed that Maybe no-one else was "inspired" to do the same Maybe he's just an idiot and sending him down will have no more effect on the GBP than his years "on the run" 108364[/snapback] Hoaxers are a huge waste of resources for the police, fire service, and ambulances aren't they Rob? I thought up to 50% of calls to the fire service were hoaxes. Which is besides the point. Do you not care that his action might have led to the deaths of innocent women? Do you not think he needs to atone for this in some way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Well I was thinking (on a related note) the other day about how my view points on crime and punishment are becoming more right wing and conservative. Believe me, this horrifies me, but I can't help swaying to the idea of much more severe punishments for some of the scumbags that live round here. I'm just reacting to the environment I live in I guess, sometimes I really think I need to get away from this place before I become something I hate. 108357[/snapback] I know where you're coming from, when your mates are getting battered or stabbed every other weekend it's hard to remain philosophical, although ideally I do believe we should be completely detached when it comes to these kind of decisions. I would worry about sending someone down for being an idiot, even if it did indirectly lead to someone else being murdered or a lot of money being wasted. Just looking at what stupidity costs in terms of lives and money every day, we'd all be locked up. On the other side, I believe if someone is caught red-handed, in a violent crime with a weapon, they should be shot, on the spot. Tell me that wouldn't stop the little knackers that seem to be stabbing people for sport and I'll be very interested to hear the reasoning, but it will at least reduce, long term, repeat violent offenses and possibly even the reproduction of undesireable genetic code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Living in Sunderland is punishment enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Many a true word.................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Someone should sign up on SMB as Wearside Jack tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22405 Posted March 20, 2006 Author Share Posted March 20, 2006 Someone should sign up on SMB as Wearside Jack tbh. 108378[/snapback] Should be more subtle tbh. Username: Jack Location: Wearside Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Can they handle EIGHT letters in the location field? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jusoda Kid 1 Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 One less mackem walking the streets, thats got to be a bonus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Todays Beeb:- Hoaxer was heavy drinking loner John Humble The image of Wearside Jack, the man who taunted detectives during the hunt for the Yorkshire Ripper, was that of a menacing and mysterious figure. Yet when he was caught, John Humble was unveiled as a loner who spent his days drinking heavily and being insulted and ridiculed by local children. Even when he was arrested, detectives had to wait almost a day before he was sober enough to be interviewed. Suicide bid Humble tried to commit suicide around the time the letters were posted in 1979, but he was pulled from the river and saved by police officers. Humble, 50, was caught after a cold case review of the Wearside Jack inquiry in September, in which a match was found between a DNA sample taken from the envelope in which a letter was received and a sample from Humble which was retained in the police national database. He was arrested at the rented house he shared with his brother Harry and sister Jean, in Flodden Road, Ford Estate, Sunderland. The house is close to where he was brought up, in Haydon Square on the city's Hylton Lane Estate, and where he lived at the time the hoax letters and tapes were sent to police. The former labourer was raised by his mother Violet, and after her death he and his brother and sister lived there until the early 1990s, when they moved to another property in the same street. Neighbours said they were evicted from that address about five years ago and moved to the nearby Ford Estate area, carrying their possessions in wheelie bins. More recently, Humble worked as a window cleaner in his local area before alcohol took over his life to such a point that even on his arrest he was drunk. During police interviews, Humble admitted that he was responsible for sending the letters and the tape, but would not accept it amounted to perverting the course of justice, and his legal team pushed for a lesser charge of wasting police time. Perfect step-father In Sunderland, neighbours and relatives said Humble's life had been on a downward spiral for years and his best friend was the bottle. In 1990, aged 36, he married 40-year-old Anne Mason in a secret register office ceremony after a whirlwind romance. Ms Mason's family were banned from attending, with only Humble's family allowed to be there and act as witnesses. In the early years of their marriage, Humble was said to be the perfect stepfather to her children Joseph and Colleen. The couple split up after nine years but have never divorced. Humble went back to live with his brother Henry in their family's former home, but started drinking heavily after his mother died soon afterwards. At the time of his arrest, neighbours said he was seen as a harmless loner, who spent his time indoors drinking cheap cider. One said: "John was fine when he was younger. He loved to play darts in the local pub and worked really hard on the buildings. But it all changed once he left Anne." Neighbour Antoinette Steel, 30, added: "First thing on a morning when the shop opened, (he and his brother) would go down for drink and would be back there at teatime." Lesley Carr, 35, said: "I felt very sorry for them. They used to get in such a state with the drink. They were always getting picked on by kids around here who would even rifle their pockets in the street." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Todays Beeb:- Hoaxer was heavy drinking loner John Humble The image of Wearside Jack, the man who taunted detectives during the hunt for the Yorkshire Ripper, was that of a menacing and mysterious figure. Yet when he was caught, John Humble was unveiled as a loner who spent his days drinking heavily and being insulted and ridiculed by local children. Even when he was arrested, detectives had to wait almost a day before he was sober enough to be interviewed. Suicide bid Humble tried to commit suicide around the time the letters were posted in 1979, but he was pulled from the river and saved by police officers. Humble, 50, was caught after a cold case review of the Wearside Jack inquiry in September, in which a match was found between a DNA sample taken from the envelope in which a letter was received and a sample from Humble which was retained in the police national database. He was arrested at the rented house he shared with his brother Harry and sister Jean, in Flodden Road, Ford Estate, Sunderland. The house is close to where he was brought up, in Haydon Square on the city's Hylton Lane Estate, and where he lived at the time the hoax letters and tapes were sent to police. The former labourer was raised by his mother Violet, and after her death he and his brother and sister lived there until the early 1990s, when they moved to another property in the same street. Neighbours said they were evicted from that address about five years ago and moved to the nearby Ford Estate area, carrying their possessions in wheelie bins. More recently, Humble worked as a window cleaner in his local area before alcohol took over his life to such a point that even on his arrest he was drunk. During police interviews, Humble admitted that he was responsible for sending the letters and the tape, but would not accept it amounted to perverting the course of justice, and his legal team pushed for a lesser charge of wasting police time. Perfect step-father In Sunderland, neighbours and relatives said Humble's life had been on a downward spiral for years and his best friend was the bottle. In 1990, aged 36, he married 40-year-old Anne Mason in a secret register office ceremony after a whirlwind romance. Ms Mason's family were banned from attending, with only Humble's family allowed to be there and act as witnesses. In the early years of their marriage, Humble was said to be the perfect stepfather to her children Joseph and Colleen. The couple split up after nine years but have never divorced. Humble went back to live with his brother Henry in their family's former home, but started drinking heavily after his mother died soon afterwards. At the time of his arrest, neighbours said he was seen as a harmless loner, who spent his time indoors drinking cheap cider. One said: "John was fine when he was younger. He loved to play darts in the local pub and worked really hard on the buildings. But it all changed once he left Anne." Neighbour Antoinette Steel, 30, added: "First thing on a morning when the shop opened, (he and his brother) would go down for drink and would be back there at teatime." Lesley Carr, 35, said: "I felt very sorry for them. They used to get in such a state with the drink. They were always getting picked on by kids around here who would even rifle their pockets in the street." 108552[/snapback] Another hard luck story of someone being so misunderstood. I feel a bit sad for Mr Humble that life has not been so kind to him. Let him rot in hell. Scumbag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22405 Posted March 21, 2006 Author Share Posted March 21, 2006 8 years then. Got off lightly imo. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yo...ire/4828828.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Bit harsh, 30 days - 3 months is the standard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22405 Posted March 21, 2006 Author Share Posted March 21, 2006 Bit harsh, 30 days - 3 months is the standard 108664[/snapback] Rob's on the phone to the judge as we speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now