Fop 1 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 My first post was a throwaway comment. I was actually agreeing with you though. Trust you to try and make something out of it What a fucking tit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14021 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 Can't they just put him in prison where he's not hurting anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 Can't they just put him in prison where he's not hurting anyone? ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh shit Fop explodes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 Can't they just put him in prison where he's not hurting anyone? Has this post been in the ether for a few years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14021 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 Can't they just put him in prison where he's not hurting anyone? Has this post been in the ether for a few years? Well I know he's been in prison but if he gets to the UK he will probably just get murdered surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 Can't they just put him in prison where he's not hurting anyone? Has this post been in the ether for a few years? Well I know he's been in prison but if he gets to the UK he will probably just get murdered surely? That will be a fun thread when that happens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14021 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 Can't they just put him in prison where he's not hurting anyone? Has this post been in the ether for a few years? Well I know he's been in prison but if he gets to the UK he will probably just get murdered surely? That will be a fun thread when that happens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 (edited) Can't they just put him in prison where he's not hurting anyone? ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh shit Fop explodes! Why? Edited August 20, 2008 by Fop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 Can't they just put him in prison where he's not hurting anyone? ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh shit Fop explodes! Why? Locking someone up when they've not been found guilty of a crime in this country? (even though we all know hes scum) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 I can't see how that would be fair when we deport criminals and immigrants by the bucketload. Figures? I have none whatsoever. Just a bit of hyperbole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 Can't they just put him in prison where he's not hurting anyone? ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh shit Fop explodes! Why? Locking someone up when they've not been found guilty of a crime in this country? (even though we all know hes scum) He was found guilty of a crime in this country, just not this specific one. I must admit though I do enjoy the irony in a lot of these threads, paedophiles turn the most usually Guardian-esq into the the Daily Mail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 I can't see how that would be fair when we deport criminals and immigrants by the bucketload. Figures? I have none whatsoever. Just a bit of hyperbole. Yes, considering we can't even deport to Italy after a murder in all instances, I think "bucketloads" is a little ambitious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 Can't they just put him in prison where he's not hurting anyone? ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh shit Fop explodes! Why? Locking someone up when they've not been found guilty of a crime in this country? (even though we all know hes scum) He was found guilty of a crime in this country, just not this specific one. I must admit though I do enjoy the irony in a lot of these threads, paedophiles turn the most usually Guardian-esq into the the Daily Mail. I think the reason people feel that was is that paedophiles arent criminals like burglars or even murderers, they have these urges which cant be turned on and off therefore, Glitter will always have a fancy for young kids whether hes here, there or somewhere totally different. The only sure way to stop a paedophile committing more acts is for them to restrain themselves, Glitter has clearly shown he cant do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14021 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 Surely castration would do the trick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 I think the reason people feel that was is that paedophiles arent criminals like burglars or even murderers, they have these urges which cant be turned on and off therefore, Glitter will always have a fancy for young kids whether hes here, there or somewhere totally different. The only sure way to stop a paedophile committing more acts is for them to restrain themselves, Glitter has clearly shown he cant do that. It's an interesting debate, although scarily if you go back 100 years (or just a couple of thousand miles today) you could have had a very similar one about homosexuality. Surely castration would do the trick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14021 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 I think the reason people feel that was is that paedophiles arent criminals like burglars or even murderers, they have these urges which cant be turned on and off therefore, Glitter will always have a fancy for young kids whether hes here, there or somewhere totally different. The only sure way to stop a paedophile committing more acts is for them to restrain themselves, Glitter has clearly shown he cant do that. It's an interesting debate, although scarily if you go back 100 years (or just a couple of thousand miles today) you could have had a very similar one about homosexuality. Surely castration would do the trick? No seriously. I know it - in a slight 'Clockwork Orange' fashion - removes the choice but at the end of the day it seems a decent enough option. At the end of the day it has to be some kind of mental illness so why not remove the choice to harm people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 15851 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 No seriously. I know it - in a slight 'Clockwork Orange' fashion - removes the choice but at the end of the day it seems a decent enough option. At the end of the day it has to be some kind of mental illness so why not remove the choice to harm people? You'd have to chop off hands and remove voiceboxes and stuff like that too. Possibly also gouge out eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14021 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 No seriously. I know it - in a slight 'Clockwork Orange' fashion - removes the choice but at the end of the day it seems a decent enough option. At the end of the day it has to be some kind of mental illness so why not remove the choice to harm people? You'd have to chop off hands and remove voiceboxes and stuff like that too. Possibly also gouge out eyes. That sounds a bit nasty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 11074 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 No seriously. I know it - in a slight 'Clockwork Orange' fashion - removes the choice but at the end of the day it seems a decent enough option. At the end of the day it has to be some kind of mental illness so why not remove the choice to harm people? You'd have to chop off hands and remove voiceboxes and stuff like that too. Possibly also gouge out eyes. Chemical castration doesn't necessarily remove the urges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 15851 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 No seriously. I know it - in a slight 'Clockwork Orange' fashion - removes the choice but at the end of the day it seems a decent enough option. At the end of the day it has to be some kind of mental illness so why not remove the choice to harm people? You'd have to chop off hands and remove voiceboxes and stuff like that too. Possibly also gouge out eyes. Chemical castration doesn't necessarily remove the urges. That's what I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14021 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 No seriously. I know it - in a slight 'Clockwork Orange' fashion - removes the choice but at the end of the day it seems a decent enough option. At the end of the day it has to be some kind of mental illness so why not remove the choice to harm people? You'd have to chop off hands and remove voiceboxes and stuff like that too. Possibly also gouge out eyes. Chemical castration doesn't necessarily remove the urges. That's what I said. I thought thats what it did? Oh well. Tom was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 (edited) I can't see how that would be fair when we deport criminals and immigrants by the bucketload. Figures? I have none whatsoever. Just a bit of hyperbole. Yes, considering we can't even deport to Italy after a murder in all instances, I think "bucketloads" is a little ambitious. What's that referring to? Story must have passed my by. UK deportations.. '97 - 5,600 '98 - 4,580 '99 - 1,785 '00 - 2,525 '01 - 625 That's a bucketload to me. Edited August 20, 2008 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 I can't see how that would be fair when we deport criminals and immigrants by the bucketload. Figures? I have none whatsoever. Just a bit of hyperbole. Yes, considering we can't even deport to Italy after a murder in all instances, I think "bucketloads" is a little ambitious. What's that referring to? Story must have passed my by. UK deportations.. '97 - 5,600 '98 - 4,580 '99 - 1,785 '00 - 2,525 '01 - 625 That's a bucketload to me. Source? Is that criminals deported? Or total deportations? And compared to immigration at the time? And were none deported from 2002 onward? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 That kid couldn't be deported to Italy because we're all in the EU. You can bet the Italians would have found a way to make him want to leave though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 I can't see how that would be fair when we deport criminals and immigrants by the bucketload. Figures? I have none whatsoever. Just a bit of hyperbole. Yes, considering we can't even deport to Italy after a murder in all instances, I think "bucketloads" is a little ambitious. What's that referring to? Story must have passed my by. UK deportations.. '97 - 5,600 '98 - 4,580 '99 - 1,785 '00 - 2,525 '01 - 625 That's a bucketload to me. Source? Is that criminals deported? Or total deportations? And compared to immigration at the time? And were none deported from 2002 onward? http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb1102.pdf Total deportations initiated, but then that's what I referred to when I said bucketloads. 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