Baby P

So Brady and the others can spend the rest of their lives as a form of income to keep others sustained through their employment in the judiciary or, do you suggest kill them off and let the unemployment rate rise.
 
Toobe said:
So Brady and the others can spend the rest of their lives as a form of income to keep others sustained through their employment in the judiciary or, do you suggest kill them off and let the unemployment rate rise.
Click to expand...

Hardly would the unemployment figures rise for the demise of Brady. However, our local hospital has been told to cut £20 million from this years' budget. One of the measures they have had to take is to lay off theatre nurses; less operations, less patients treated. The waiting lists are getting any shorter. So, Brady alive another year or 5 theatre nurses for a year?
 
So the NHS has layed of theatre nurses as cost cutting measures, firstly why and secondly what office/admin jobs were cut as part of the deal?
 
Actually, on the point of Brady being kept alive, G-G is correct. He was on hunger strike at one point, don't know if that is still the case, but at the time he was force fed. At that particular point in time, the authorities were keeping him alive. I wouldn't know the 'official' reason for doing so but it was definitely done.
 
There would no doubt be a law involved somewhere probably to do with Brady being the responsibility of the Crown and possibly used so they can find where the Bennett lad ( if I have the correct name) is buried. He is kept alive in the hope that the lads mum can lay her son to rest. Brady knows no harm will come to him whilst he holds that answer and the lads body remains undiscovered, the suicide thing would have been about Brady trying to be in control by keeping the location unknown. I would want him alive on those grounds if it were my kid.
 
Toobe said:
So the NHS has layed of theatre nurses as cost cutting measures, firstly why and secondly what office/admin jobs were cut as part of the deal?
Click to expand...


Probably because once one adds up the cost of laying off the nurses, which means no surgeon time, no anaesthetist, theatre time, no patient taking up a bed, possibly no intensive care bed/nurse/doctor required, no laundry serves neeed for changing bedding, no occupational therapist or physiotherapist needed - the cost of that one action is far greater than cutting one administration and so 'looks better' on a bottom line balance sheet. Having said that a relative is a medical secretary at the same hospital and has been warned their job may not be safe either. This does not mean that I agree with it. Knowing people who work in the NHS who are not administrators, they are all disgusted by the amount of money which is being wasted on too many of the former.
 
So if the administrators or, those that run the NHS are putting lives at risk or worse costing lives what would be your solution GG?
 
I am not turning this into a discussion about how I would run the NHS because as Warbler said 'God forbid'. This is about spending money on keeping someone like Brady alive as compared to spending on public needs. I have already more than stated my opinion on that.
 
Although I feel the Brady/Hindley case is one of the most heinous of the child murderers and it would seem that Brady unlike some of the others holds the place one of his victims lay, giving him his only sense of control and showing in turn how his control streak is on an evil and sadistic base, surely it is best to keep him alive if he has tried to kill himself and take this knowledge to his grave. The term "death is to good for the likes of thee" springs to mind. As a member of the public I feel that it is in the public interest that the mother of the missing child appears to be taken into consideration above whether Brady can end his own misery.
 
It was recently announced that the police have given up looking as Brady cannot remember enough, if any, details and the photographs they have do not have enough detail to help them, but then they probably never did. I realise they found one body in 1987 but only after both Hindley and Brady confessed to it - Hindley in the hope of some chance of parole. It could be argued that this would never have happened if they had been executed at the time, but the police were satisfied they had committed the crime anyway. I realise the retieval of the body was some comfort to the family, but aM not honestly sure if this would outweigh my view that both of them should not have had the right to live after being found guilty of two hideous crimes.
 
Your view I feel may change were you faced with that situation, which I do honestly hope you never are or, remotely anywhere near something that horrific for that matter. There but for the grace..eh!
 
I wonder what the cost has been to keep Hindley & Brady in prison..from 1966-2002 for Hindley...1966 - now for Brady

a few hospital wards/nurses there i think

all in the name of being "civilised"

or maybe its "soft"
 
I wonder how much it cost to keep the birmingham six and guildford four in prison all that time

Pity we didnt hang them eh?
 
you seem obsessed with the Birmingham 6 Clive...5 of whom were on their way to a lovely blokes funeral on the night in question..poor guy blew himself up whilst planting a bomb in Coventry....yes it was wrong how they were fitted up for this..but are you really telling me that people like that have any interest to you bar to keep bringing them up to try and make a point that isn't that relevant here?

my earlier post covers this..you get decent policing..and actually arrest the right people to start with..I ain't got time for lazy, predjudiced, unintelligent law enforcement officers tbh...and certainly won't defend that sort of policing.

you know..if we can't catch the right people its a pretty sorry state of affairs

so how much would you estimate..in todays terms those two cost us anyway?

the first thing we need in this country is a DNA database of everyone who lives here...it could be done...how much money would this save over the years?..make catching criminals a lot easier.

you seem to be a right criminal hugger Clive..I'm surprised by that tbh.
 
Last edited:
Not obssessed but they would have hung if you had had your wishes. there is no question about that

whatever you think of cpaital punishment...that is one point that the advocates cannot address
 
clivex said:
Not obssessed but they would have hung if you had had your wishes. there is no question about that

whatever you think of cpaital punishment...that is one point that the advocates cannot address
Click to expand...


you aren't getting it Clive are you?

they wouldn't have been convicted if I had my way..the police would have caught the right people...THATS the problem..nothing to do with the punishment

i've addressed it clearly- CATCH THE RIGHT PEOPLE - thats why we have the police is it not?..to catch the right people...we might as well have schoolkids policing the country otherwise

if we had surgeons carrying out the wrong operations on people..what would you say?..."best keep out of hospitals..they do the wrong operations on you"
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
you aren't getting it Clive are you?

they wouldn't have been convicted if I had my way..the police would have caught the right people...THATS the problem..nothing to do with the punishment

The case still has to be proven, even if the police just have a strong suspicion, not as simple and straight forward as you may think.

i've addressed it clearly- CATCH THE RIGHT PEOPLE - thats why we have the police is it not?..to catch the right people...we might as well have schoolkids policing the country otherwise

if we had surgeons carrying out the wrong operations on people..what would you say?..."best keep out of hospitals..they do the wrong operations on you"
Click to expand...

I would say both authorities are equally to blame in some instances, when it comes to human error. After all it was a doctor who said there was nothing wrong with baby P when he had a broken back. What were her words "a bit grouchy" or something like!!! Please, medicine is to prevent and cure as much as the police.
 
EC, how do you suggest we ensure that we have a police force that are able to get the right person or people?......................the lot we have at the moment don't seem that hot at it.
 
EC1 - so you favour having the entire population's DNA on a central data base, just so you can catch criminals? What about the millions of people whose countries don't and won't have DNA databases, who float through the UK every year, whether they're seasonal workers, tourists, students, second homers, illegals, etc.? There have been plenty of rapes and murders committed by members of this floating population and nary a DNA smudge in sight. At present, I think it's enough to commit the DNA of convicted crims to a database, but I don't buy that facile 'if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about' propaganda, as fans of national databases are wont to do.

You might as well have national ID cards, followed eventually by microchipping at birth, with all the details embedded, like a racehorse or pet. Then we could just be wafted through one country to another via scanners. I imagine the day will come, of course, since we have been conditioned to believe that this is the way in which we somehow magically control criminality - and populations. We won't, any more than the death penalty ever did and, while I have some fairly warm arguments with Clivex on certain matters, I'm in concord with him on that subject. We know that people have been wrongly locked up for years for crimes which they didn't commit, and who were (and will be in future) released only when DNA matches prove their innocence and another's guilt. Those people would've been hanged years, even decades ago, if we still used capital punishment. I'm sure you'd feel a little less keen on reinstating it if one of your relatives was incarcerated for someone else's crime, helplessly facing execution day. DNA is an excellent tool, but, like many of the tools at the disposal of the police, it can be used deceptively, it can be mixed up in the lab with someone else's, and so on. Far too many errors or deliberate deceptions in investigations have occurred (and probably still do) to place such blind faith in this aspect of identification. It's got to form part of a full and proper investigation - not just be used as the definitive answer to solving a crime.

It's all very well to insist that the police always nab the right person, but we know that the history of policing is littered with instances of where they don't, or, for complex legal or even political reasons, can't. You're imagining DNA as a short cut, tv-style, where the boffins in the crime lab go "Gotta match!" and that's it, case solved. If only one could trust that scenario, how simple everything would be.
 
Last edited:
Thats about right krizon and far from all convictions are based on DNA. Look at the incredibly flimsy evidence surrounding the Dando conviction

EC1. it is you that doesnt get it. As ever, the advocates simply cannot answer the question
 
Krizon

ID cards aren't the same thing as DNA records are they?

If they started with getting all convicted criminals DNA it would solve a large proportion of crimes seeing as how a small % of the population commit most of the crime.

whats the alternative?..keep accepting the shite way we work now

The Dando case was a classic lazy policemans conviction Clive..the sort of thing that needs removing from any judicial system..this type of policing is not acceptable...its not even rubbish..its corrupt.

The main problem we have is in getting people to do their job correctly..its a bugger if we let the police fit anyone up who they like.

I wonder how many criminals are correctly convicted then?
 
It was a lazy jury conviction too EC. Just like the guildford 4 and birm six. But like you, i have no problem with dna. The chances of error are absolutely tiny
 
basically

we all hate this fitting up carry on..it absolutely disgusts me

I watched the Barry George thing a while ago..the police involved in that need charges bringing against them imo..they simply thought the local nutter would do was the clear thinking..they didn't realise he had a sister that would not allow them to get away with it
 
The key to any case I will assume is a complete table of forensic and circumstantial, or it is to easy to say it was a fit up, then the police are inbetween a rock and a hard place as it has to stand up in court not what they would just wish it to be, so as to make the case easier to solve. What is sad in the baby P case is that all the authorities were petrified, or so it would seem, to do anything prior to his death just incase they had a counterclaim against them. Yet the forensics and the circumstantials were pretty complete before his death.
 
Back
Top