If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
He was 14 years old. He was a child. The fact that a few fivers were involved makes absolutely no difference: A child was strangled to death and buried in a shallow grave by a gang of paedophiles.
Is the crime somehow less heinous because the victim had accepted money from his torturers? No. Are we supposed to have less sympathy for the 14 year old victim because by some tragic circumstances he ended up working as a rent boy? No.
Reading your post again I'm quite disgusted at what you're implying with your 'it's worth remembering he was a rent boy' and 'bear in mind he wasn't like the Soham girls' line of argument.
There are no mitigating circumstance in the victim being a rent boy. If anything that just makes the whole episode sadder.
I don't want to know, but I will be vigilant around with my child.
I would rather of course they were locked away somewhere safe but it's never going happen.
No, MOK, I don't believe that at all. Anyone dying in any unnatural death is appalling - whether a rent boy or prostitute. I was trying to make a certain point which I feel I have not explained well. But where did I say that Swift (or the Ipswich girls) had it coming? You're putting extra words into my mouth. In all sorts of dangerous pastimes, whethere prostituion or skydiving for example, these are dangerous risks - but that in no way implies I feel they have it coming to them.
I did not explain myself too well so I understand your misinterpretation of what I was trying to say. There is no way I would ever think that Swift (or the Ipswich prostitutes) ever 'deserved' to die. But at the risk of digging a deeper hole for myself, I'll wander off now ...
That viewpoint is absolutely fucking insane.
To answer Aladdin- a person very close to me was violently raped. If I could get hold of the person who did it, and I could get away with it, then I would have no qualms about beating him to a pulp. And if someone was to beat this convicted paedophile killer to death I would be lying if I said that I would shed a single tear.
I agree that mob rule is wrong, because there is no comeback if mistakes are made (and lots of mistakes are made), and I agree that the newspaper was grossly irresponsible (deliberately) and should face censure for it. But I'm finding it very hard to have any sympathy at all for a convicted child sex abuser and killer.
My job has nothing to do with it. Why should it?
I really do think this particular paedophile was an exceptional case though. He shouldnt have ever come out of prison, and whatever shit he gets in his life, is still too good for him. That sounds like a cliché but im surprised anyone here thinks any different really
Personally, I hope the said paedophile is given legal aid to sue the News of the World out of existence. You'd probably have more luck if you visited the News of the World's headquarters in Wapping, East London.
It doesnt make me feel particularly sympathetic when they dont manage to control themselves, but it has opened my eyes a lot.
The vast vast majority of people are perfectly safe with children though and theres still no reason for people to freak out. You just need to keep a bloody eye on your children, that much is obvious.
Like SCC, though, I honestly cannot understand how anyone can see what this creature did and not think that he deserved every misery in his life, and then some more.
I still fail to see what my job as a conveyancer has to do with anything
But I think there is a fundamental difference between that case, and lynch mobs forming to attack persons they have never met, and more to the point who have already served their time.
If people perceive a danger, then they will react. I am all for the right to protest, and thats all this was.
Its a community thing. They didnt want that danger in their community, even if they were being simplistic to think the danger wouldnt be there anymore once they remove this one person. Theres PLENTY of people who get out of jail LONG before they have really served their time, and certainly not rehabilitated. I think it boils down to lack of trust in the justice system, which is a fair point. The justice system seems to be a farce a lot of the time. If there really WAS justice, then the guy would still be in prison and none of this would have even been an issue.
Why? Journalists - even News of the World journalists - are human beings as well. Why do you have a the right to care about paedophiles in a community but not these journalists? In all likelyhood they probably think they're doing a good deed, and that they're doing the best thing for the children of that town by releasing the information. You admit that you agree with them when you say that you'd want to know if a "fucking cunt nonce" moved into your street.
It might be that editorial or individual ambition/desperation for sales over-rides what is right in papers like the News of the World: but you don't know that at all in this case, you're simply making an uniformed judgement, and being rather rude about it too.
I don't believe you have such a thing...a dunce-cap, maybe...
Bloody hell Aladdin - don't you think that they'd have been through enough already?! :razz:
Probably it's because they are News of the World journalists, who have a long tradition of writing kak to make a fast buck for Mr Murdoch ...
If the story had been broken by the Guardian or Independant, it would have been seen to have been far more 'credible' that the journos actually cared themselves.
Why? It would make you as bad as him. Sinxe when have 2 wrongs made a right?:rolleyes:
Carlito, if you're going to be abusive at least read what I say first, eh, chuck? I know its hard for you to understand basic English, but have a go!
I don't think that "Sarah's Law" should be brought in and I don't think the paper should have printed what they printed. I don't agree with mob justice.
I understand why, when they found out about this cunt living in their village, they hounded him out, and I don't blame them for doing it. I also believe that the newspaper knew this would happen, and deliberately set the scene to make two lots of profit out of it- once for naming him, and once for reporting the aftermath at length.
Anyone who trusts a journalist is a fool.
If you think that beating up a nonce is the same thing as raping and murdering a child then you need psychiatric help.
WTF? When have I said they were the same?
You did actually say that.
And that was just for me thinking it, without even doing it.
But who defines what justice is morally right and which justice isn't?
Have the decency to hang himself, tbh.
Who cares if he "served his time"? Go and tell it to Jason Swift.
Well you've cited three examples there, one of which was freelance paparazzi not newspapers, one of which is almost always freelance paparazzi not newspapers, and one of which is the issue under discussion. And you've omitted the millions of items that appear in newspapers around the world every day that are in the public interest.
Not only that, but I never claimed that releasing that paedophile's name was "in the public interest," I was replying to your assertion that "if anyone thinks that the newspaper cares about the people of that town they are fucking idiots." I think that the journalists in question probably do care about the people of that town: they think what they are doing is right and protects the children there. Personally I think thats rubbish, but thats irrelevant, your assertion was not about whether it did help protect the children of that town, but whether or not they cared about them.
Actually Kermit, it was you who was abusive by calling me a "fucking idiot," which I think most people would find more offensive than suggesting that you are a dunce (I was being generous). And I have read what you've written on this thread, its reminiscent of rushed homework written by the retarded child of a Daily Mail hack.
No, anybody who tars every member of a profession that encompasses millions of people around the world with the same brush is a fool. Thats you, it seems.
not too much to ask.