Prison Justice served ? ? ? return of the death sentence ? ? ?

[Heisenberg]

I don’t think there is evidence of rampant rape, murder or child abuse by the upper classes. In fact, I don’t even think that Jimmy Savile did any more groping than the average dj or pop star in the 1960s or 70s. Nearly everything you read in the papers is either a lie, an exaggeration or a misunderstanding.

This is the lowest point of CCMB in the time I've been a member. Nice one.

[delmbox]

This is the lowest point of CCMB in the time I've been a member. Nice one.

Imagine being a person who defends Jimmy Saville, how badly you're failing in life

[David Vincent]

This is the lowest point of CCMB in the time I've been a member. Nice one.

I can only assume you joined last week.

I doubt if you personally have any inside knowledge about Jimmy Savile, but, no doubt, you have read about his evil deeds in the papers. How do you know that is true? You don't. When I read anything in the papers about my areas of interest or about people I know personally I find that the papers have got many of the facts wrong. I therefore assume the stories in the paper outside my areas of interest or expertise are also full of errors and lies.

If you want some background on the Jimmy Savile case you can read the Anna Racoon blog. The author behind the blog is dead now but she knew some of the girls who started the Savile abuse story. Anna Racoon was a solicitor who was very skeptical about the Savile stories. Her own life story was very sad but she wrote about it in a very funny way. Her blog is a good read.

https://annaraccoon.com/2013/07/24/t...-savile-story/

[delmbox]

I can only assume you joined last week.

I doubt if you personally have any inside knowledge about Jimmy Savile, but, no doubt, you have read about his evil deeds in the papers. How do you know that is true? You don't. When I read anything in the papers about my areas of interest or about people I know personally I find that the papers have got many of the facts wrong. I therefore assume the stories in the paper outside my areas of interest or expertise are also full of errors and lies.

If you want some background on the Jimmy Savile case you can read the Anna Racoon blog. The author behind the blog is dead now but she knew some of the girls who started the Savile abuse story. Anna Racoon was a solicitor who was very skeptical about the Savile stories. Her own life story was very sad but she wrote about it in a very funny way. Her blog is a good read.

https://annaraccoon.com/2013/07/24/t...-savile-story/

Scotland Yard's investigation revealed 214 criminal sexual offences across 28 police forces, between 1955 and 2009.

So just to be clear - the same justice system that you trust to make decisions about whether someone is guilty of murder and should be sentenced to death, is in this case wrong about 214 sexual offences across 28 police forces?

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Scotland Yard's investigation revealed 214 criminal sexual offences across 28 police forces, between 1955 and 2009.

So just to be clear - the same justice system that you trust to make decisions about whether someone is guilty of murder and should be sentenced to death, is in this case wrong about 214 sexual offences across 28 police forces?

Checkmate.

[splott parker]

Scotland Yard's investigation revealed 214 criminal sexual offences across 28 police forces, between 1955 and 2009.

So just to be clear - the same justice system that you trust to make decisions about whether someone is guilty of murder and should be sentenced to death, is in this case wrong about 214 sexual offences across 28 police forces?

Boom!!!! As some say!!!

[Croesy Blue]

Someone defending Jimmy Saville is something I never thought I'd see on here.

Someone saying they trust the justice system to kill people who are child abusers and murderers and then going into a conspiracy defending one of the biggest child abusers undermining his whole argument and defending Saville in the process is next level

[J R Hartley]

Checkmate.

In most cases it would be checkmate but not against Splotty

[David Vincent]

Scotland Yard's investigation revealed 214 criminal sexual offences across 28 police forces, between 1955 and 2009.

So just to be clear - the same justice system that you trust to make decisions about whether someone is guilty of murder and should be sentenced to death, is in this case wrong about 214 sexual offences across 28 police forces?

I never said I trusted the justice system. I just said that murderers should be executed. The difference between the two things was made clear in one of my posts.

I don't know if people are lying or telling the truth about Savile. If they are saying that he groped them then some of them are probably telling the truth. After Operation Midland we know that the police are very gullible when it comes to investigating cases of abuse especially when financial incentives are involved. Perhaps if you read Anna Raccons blogs about Savile you might look at it all more objectively.

[J R Hartley]

Someone defending Jimmy Saville is something I never thought I'd see on here.

Someone saying they trust the justice system to kill people who are child abusers and murderers and then going into a conspiracy defending one of the biggest child abusers undermining his whole argument and defending Saville in the process is next level

Disclaimer:

I would like it put on record that whilst I am in support for some of Splottys beliefs on capital punishment I do not share his views on Jimmy Saville.

[dembethewarrior]

I never said I trusted the justice system. I just said that murderers should be executed. The difference between the two things was made clear in one of my posts.

I don't know if people are lying or telling the truth about Savile. If they are saying that he groped them then some of them are probably telling the truth. After Operation Midland we know that the police are very gullible when it comes to investigating cases of abuse especially when financial incentives are involved. Perhaps if you read Anna Raccons blogs about Savile you might look at it all more objectively.

You rambled on about accepting your fate even if you knew you were innocent, based on the facts the judge had to consider, you said you’d accept his sentence of death.


Or something along them lines, I’m still off my tits high as a kite after reading your posts.

[delmbox]

I never said I trusted the justice system. I just said that murderers should be executed. The difference between the two things was made clear in one of my posts.

I don't know if people are lying or telling the truth about Savile. If they are saying that he groped them then some of them are probably telling the truth. After Operation Midland we know that the police are very gullible when it comes to investigating cases of abuse especially when financial incentives are involved. Perhaps if you read Anna Raccons blogs about Savile you might look at it all more objectively.

You think murderers should be executed but you don't trust the justice system to decide if people are murderers or not. You're tying yourself in knots, time to cut your losses I think.

[David Vincent]

You rambled on about accepting your fate even if you knew you were innocent, based on the facts the judge had to consider, you said you’d accept his sentence of death.


Or something along them lines, I’m still off my tits high as a kite after reading your posts.

I believe murderers deserve to be executed. That statement says nothing about how we decide if someone is guilty of murder. We will never know for certain if someone really is guilty because we don't have perfect knowledge. Sometimes innocent people will be executed because we couldn't be bothered finding an improved way of discovering guilt. But no system is ever perfect and sometimes someone will be found guilty of murder because of some freak occurrence or coincidence that defies logic or reason. It is the same with any crime. If you stopped punishing people because there is a one in a billion chance that they are innocent then no one would be found guilty of any crime.

[Croesy Blue]

I never said I trusted the justice system. I just said that murderers should be executed. The difference between the two things was made clear in one of my posts.

I don't know if people are lying or telling the truth about Savile. If they are saying that he groped them then some of them are probably telling the truth. After Operation Midland we know that the police are very gullible when it comes to investigating cases of abuse especially when financial incentives are involved. Perhaps if you read Anna Raccons blogs about Savile you might look at it all more objectively.

Try and do some critical thinking now, you think the justice system makes mistakes (including bizzarly jimmy saville for some reason). If this justice system makes mistakes, do you think we should give them the power to kill the people they convict?

[splott parker]

Disclaimer:

I would like it put on record that whilst I am in support for some of Splottys beliefs on capital punishment I do not share his views on Jimmy Saville.

Splotty??? Got me worried😱

[J R Hartley]

Splotty??? Got me worried��

I have a feeling David Vincent is Splott Dai but I could be wrong.

[OurManFlint II]

I believe murderers deserve to be executed. That statement says nothing about how we decide if someone is guilty of murder. We will never know for certain if someone really is guilty because we don't have perfect knowledge. Sometimes innocent people will be executed because we couldn't be bothered finding an improved way of discovering guilt. But no system is ever perfect and sometimes someone will be found guilty of murder because of some freak occurrence or coincidence that defies logic or reason. It is the same with any crime. If you stopped punishing people because there is a one in a billion chance that they are innocent then no one would be found guilty of any crime.

Eye witness accounts for about 20 odd percent of all investigations and focus, yet 75% of cases based on eye witness convictions are over-turned when scientific evidence is presented.

Scientifically proven that eye-witness is 100% unreliable unless collaborated with other scientific evidence.

Whilst my numbers might be out, yours is a ridiculous statement

[David Vincent]

I have a feeling David Vincent is Splott Dai but I could be wrong.

This is what happens when you go by feelings instead of evidence. I am not Splott Dai.

When you look at all the evidence against Savile it is the relatively small number of accusers that surprises me. Let us say there are 100 known victims - I don't know if this is the real figure. How many different people did Savile meet in his career? Let's say 50 a week. That's probably on the conservative side. He did that for 55 years. That's 143,000 different people he met. If he was an uncontrolled sex pervert I would expect a far higher number of victims.

Sometimes we are unduly influenced by the numbers we see in the papers. Here is a little puzzle for you. Suppose the police decide to do a breathalyzer test at 9.00 on a Sunday morning and they are stopping people completely randomly. They are not looking at your driving at all. Let us suppose they know from previous random tests during that time period 1 person in a 1000 will be driving drunk. Suppose that the breathalyzer test is 95% accurate - there is only a 5% false positive chance. That morning they have stopped 1000 drivers and you are one of them. You have failed the test. How likely is it that you are drunk?

[Croesy Blue]

But no system is ever perfect and sometimes someone will be found guilty of murder because of some freak occurrence or coincidence that defies logic or reason.

Surely that argument blows any argument for the death penalty away. Why would you ever want an innocent person killed even if the chance is miniscule?

It is the same with any crime. If you stopped punishing people because there is a one in a billion chance that they are innocent then no one would be found guilty of any crime.

The chances of winning the lottery are 1 in 14 million. If you think our criminal justice system is that accurate you must be even more off your nut than you've come across in this thread.

[Croesy Blue]

This is what happens when you go by feelings instead of evidence. I am not Splott Dai.

When you look at all the evidence against Savile it is the relatively small number of accusers that surprises me. Let us say there are 100 known victims - I don't know if this is the real figure. How many different people did Savile meet in his career? Let's say 50 a week. That's probably on the conservative side. He did that for 55 years. That's 143,000 different people he met. If he was an uncontrolled sex pervert I would expect a far higher number of victims.

Sometimes we are unduly influenced by the numbers we see in the papers. Here is a little puzzle for you. Suppose the police decide to do a breathalyzer test at 9.00 on a Sunday morning and they are stopping people completely randomly. They are not looking at your driving at all. Let us suppose they know from previous random tests during that time period 1 person in a 1000 will be driving drunk. Suppose that the breathalyzer test is 95% accurate - there is only a 5% false positive chance. That morning they have stopped 1000 drivers and you are one of them. You have failed the test. How likely is it that you are drunk?

That's more accurate than eye witness evidence though. You're putting forward more arguments against the death penalty with every post.

(95% accurate doesn't mean wrong 5% of the time btw, that would be 95% reliable. If it was 95% accuracy you would just build in a 10% error margin to counteract it)

[William Treseder]

I have a feeling David Vincent is Splott Dai but I could be wrong.

You wrong!!!! Never!! 😁

[David Vincent]

That's more accurate than eye witness evidence though. You're putting forward more arguments against the death penalty with every post.

(95% accurate doesn't mean wrong 5% of the time btw, that would be 95% reliable. If it was 95% accuracy you would just build in a 10% error margin to counteract it)

This is just quick puzzle so forget the false negative. Just imagine there is only a false positive. What is the chance that you are really drunk?

[J R Hartley]

You wrong!!!! Never!! ��

Do one. Pansy man.

[delmbox]

I have a feeling David Vincent is Splott Dai but I could be wrong.

Splott Dai was nutty but he wasn't this nutty was he? Ask David Vincent if he's ever been shot in the arse

[Croesy Blue]

This is just quick puzzle so forget the false negative. Just imagine there is only a false positive. What is the chance that you are really drunk?

I'd say with you there's a 100% chance