Harvester Of Souls

Why not merge everything into one thread?

I concur, good Sir. A study conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health (America) in 1998 concluded that the typical (if that is even a real description) child sex offender molests and average of 117 children, most of who do not report the offence. Never mind unsavoury. For monsters like Cooke why not execute the dirty b****** and people like him. Look at all the misery it causes. Why risk exposing more people to their kind of special love? I concur again but about when the penal system can not re-educate or rehabilitate? Habitual offenders that laugh at the courts. Remove them and they can't reoffend. If a dog attacks a human it's put down. Why don't we extend the same courtesy to those special b*******, like Cooke, who will offend given the opportunity. When a guy can hit Lennon with half a dozen shots and completely miss Yoko Ono it's glaringly obvious that any form of justice has gone. 1, Revenge. I disagree with the revenge aspect. To a child that is left the physical and mental scars of such an encounter executing the suspect would be fair punishment in certain circumstances. Re-read Cooke's catalogue of offences. 2, Protection. The protection of society isn't just about physical protection. There is financial protection to consider too. We clothe these people. We feed these people. We allow them a better standard of living than many of their victims. Where is the justice there? They're only a risk to their fellow convicts whilst incarcerated but why should a teenage burglar be at risk from a habitual sex offender? 3, Deterrence. Absolutely nothing deters the criminal. Especially the UK's revolving door penal system. I've never argued the deterrence factor of capital punishment. There is nothing to argue. 4, Rehabilitation. If rehabilitation is possible then I favour it. I'm referring to the cases where it isn't. Where the perpetrator is reoffending at the earliest opportunity. Society wastes time and money on these people that could be better spent on it's law abiding citizens. Health. Education, etc etc. Let's think about the victims and the law abiding for a change. I concur good Sir. We're constantly belittled in our views expect for a brief period every 4 years, or so, when the fate of the country rests on our pens. A referendum would clear up many issues that Britain has. Issues that politicians ignore constantly in favour of lining their pockets. Now a larger problem... voter apathy.

Peter Sallis

Huzzah again! Welcome Sir. I like the cut of your jib already! Gladiator I salute you

Bravo, Captain. Seconded! Huzzah!

As if any more proof were needed that football, is indeed, shite...

By Firing Squad I wonder if they'll show his execution on the internet. It probably won't act as a deterrant for sex holidaying kiddy fiddlers but it would make a damn good educational video on Vietnamese justice. From the link kindly provided by Canadian Paul it appears that the American's fired up old sparky for a single 'singe' venture last year... that's interesting.

It cuts re-offending to zero. Unless voodoo enjoys a renaissance... unlikely. With the state of the criminal justice system in the UK all they have to do to get away with their crimes is turn up in court and shed a few tears... The execution of extreme cases would clear the prisons of habitual reoffenders. It would cut the cost of funding the prison system as we wouldn't have to feed, clothe, etc these animals. The money could be used to rehabilitate and educate those convicts that do want to change their lives without subsidising those that don't... Savvy criminals I can live with. Multi million pound secure units to segregate habitual sex offenders I can't. Read this earlier post on serial child rapist Sidney Cooke. The only thing this man is capable of learning is new ways to sexually torture young boys. No amount of 'good' this man can do would attone for his crimes against kids. Some one please tell me why he shouldn't be executed. Easiest way to cure the problem of serial sexual offenders, who refuse treatment and admit that they'll reoffend is to execute them. It's not about helping old ladies across the road it's about removing the people in society that break into their homes and then brutally rape them.

Apologies if someone has posted this further down the line... actually no. No apologies. I can't be arsed reading all 20 pages to check... Here goes. How many forum members does it take to change a light bulb? 1 to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed 14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently 7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs 1 to mark it 'Off Topic' 2 to argue about why it's not off topic if you started the thread 7 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs 5 to flame the spell checkers 3 to correct spelling/grammar flames 6 to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb" ... another 6 to condemn those 6 as stupid 2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is "lamp" 15 know-it-alls who claim they were in the industry, and that "light bulb" is perfectly correct 19 to post that this forum is not about light bulbs and to please take this discussion to a light bulb forum 11 to defend the posting to this forum saying that we all use light bulbs and therefore the posts are relevant to this forum 36 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique and what brands are faulty 7 to post URL's where one can see examples of different light bulbs 4 to post that the URL's were posted incorrectly and then post the corrected URL's 3 to post about links they found from the URL's that are relevant to this group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group 13 to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including all headers and signatures, and add "Me too" 5 to post to the group that they will no longer post because they cannot handle the light bulb controversy 4 to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?" 13 to say "do a search on light bulbs before posting questions about light bulbs" 1 forum lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now and start it all over again 1 to tell us he has the remakable power to predict jokes Is there anyone on DL this doesn't apply to?

Frankly, I'd rather contract the ebola virus...

It's true. I saw it in a documentary where a man, and his dog, made a video diary about exploration, of the moon, and sample gathering. It was on BBC2. "A Grand Day Out" I think it was entitled.

I'm not suggesting a total return of the death penalty for any trivial offence. I am also aware that the last man executed in Britain was found to be innocent 20 years later. I accept that not everyone who's dangled from the noose is guilty but when there are extreme cases like this why should carry on supporting them when they clearly cannot be cured? Guilt is beyond doubt. The man has admitted he's a danger and will offend again! Sex offender was a very broad term but so far no one has given a valid reason why this man should be kept by the tax payer when he can not be rehabilitated. He is incurable in the sense that he cannot be cured from commiting crimes against young boys. Thought police I am not... what he thinks about and w**** over, whilst sickening, is in his head. When that mental link becomes physical it's time to fire up old sparky. To make it a little more specific he is a serial predatory paedophile who has admitted that he will re-offend, refused any form of 'therapy treatment' and is under investigation for molesting a young offender whilst in protective custody.... Protective custody to stop the vigilante tax payer dishing out a good old dose of knuckle butties. Now that the government has decreed a council tax hike depends on whether you have a nice view from your window I don't see why I should fork out the extra £'s to keep this nonce away from the pitch fork wielding, torch bearing, angry mob... The joys of selective editting. This isn't a crime of passion or spur of the moment lapse of judgement... I'm not suggesting death row for 'Three Strikes And You're Out' type behaviour. I'm taking special circumstances for special cases. This man is a Serial Predatory Paedophile. Gas the f***er Good old fashion British justice. 6 years... Excellent that means that the sentence is automatically cut in half for good behaviour... unless they're naughty inside (and they have to be very naughty for it to have any effect ) 10 years and 5 years respectively. I reckon the potty mouth will be out in three. England was going to the dogs until it was banned in February... not sure what's happening now.

But it doesn't. They use 'implements' instead.

Like inventing the term 'enemy combatants' to avoid any international legal repercussions?

I'm so naive I thought that was going to be a link to asbestos underpants.

As a footballer, Best was hated by everyone apart from Man U fans! Did anyone expect anything other than jeers and applause, from Leeds and Man City?

What about Pete Townshend? Is this a grey area? It was 'research' after all.

Executing him achieves nothing more than stopping him breathing. Keeping him locked up means I have to pay more taxes to feed him. Clothe him. Provide him a standard of living that alot of law abiding people in this country don't have. I have to pay to keep him entertained. I have to pay to keep him segregated from others. After his release I've had to pay to keep him in protective custody. I've had to pay to have him relocated to stop angry citizens killing and torturing him. Executing him would not only prevent him reoffending it would save me a few quid and I'm happy with that. No problem at all. I'd quite happily open the trap door. Kick the chair away. Plop the tablet into the water. Push the lever that operates the syringe. In this case I would sleep like a baby. Infact better than I would if I knew he had the possibility of parole. Society has just slaughtered 10's of thousands of people in another country so they don't have to pay too much at the petrol pumps. I don't advocate the death penalty for anything other than exceptional cases. Sidney Cooke being one. There are people rotting in our prison systems and secure hospitals that have commited heinous crimes. Crimes that make what Sidney Cooke has done look trivial. Even monsters like Brady are lightweights in comparison. Why should we fund their care and their Sky TV? They are beyond rehabilitation. They can never be released into society. What do we gain from keeping them alive? See above. Society is at the level of these people as we're happy to allow them to mingle among us. I think we used to call that Australia. Why fund them TF? The ones that are beyond help? The ones that are guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt? Those that will do it again if the opportunity arises? Why even subject those that can be rehabilitated to the wrath of those that can't? Why even offer them the dignity of a choice?

Would anyone say that Mr Gadd has been rehabilitated?

Fair enough. The opening 3 paragraphs of the article... Sidney Cooke is regarded as a dangerous and predatory paedophile who even at the age of 72 remains a constant threat to youngsters. He has been given two life sentences for a catalogue of crimes involving the systematic rape and abuse of two brothers over several years. But these horrific admissions are just one of a series of depraved acts the persistent offender has committed during the past three decades. Jason Swift Cooke Refused To Undergo Treatment, And Has Admitted He May Offend Again Cooke Under Investigation For Raping A Vulnerable Prisoner Whilst In Protective Custody My reason for his execution would be to remove the threat to society. He's been a practicing paedophile twice as long as his victims have been alive. He's already shown that he is dangerous and likely to reoffend. The punishment itself would justify the torture he subjected those boys too especially Jason Swift. I was anti death penalty until I read what they actually did to him. Ultimate punishment and reduces his likely to reoffend to zero. Why should the tax payer fund this predatory nonce, his protection, his benefits and when he reoffends, his stay at Her Majesty's Pleasure? I don't think that capital punishment should be used for anything other than extreme cases. Like this one. It doesn't act as a deterrent but in this case it is justice. So why shouldn't he be executed?

I'll try again. To those that don't support the death penalty... Give me a good reason why someone like Sidney Cooke shouldn't be executed?

Excellent post good Sir! Hades salutes you!

Leg end?

As above Definitely. Any sign of weakness is an instant cull. You're either with us or you're against us.

A really big machine gun.