Ian Huntly's Girlfriend.

[budda]

She has applied for electronic tagging and for early release, which under the sentance she was given she is totaly allowed to do, and given she has behaved herself there really isnt any major reasons not to.

However the Home Office heard about this and OVER NIGHT changed the rules and decided that in 'exceptional' cases they should decide not the local courts and judges.

This is a JOKE, Blunket is plainly pandering to the worst elements of the press in this country. It seems to me that he just wants to sentace everyone who commits a crime himself, sod the judges.

He was knocked back recently at the EU because he kept trying to increase peoples jail time AFTER they had been sentanced.

Surely its not long till we get Blunket Court TV, where a panel of Sun and Sunday Express readers decide whether people are guilty or not then from the court room, straight to the gallows.

That would get our rampent crime rate under control.

[byny]

First off ... she's his EX girlfriend.

It is pathetic. If a system like tagging is available then the same crieteria should be used to assess all possible criminals when deciding to use it. If Maxine Carr fits the Criteria then thee is no reason whatsoever that she shouldn't be considered for the tagging scheme.

But typically some people think it's ok to change the criteria person by person depending on how much shit publicity they have had!:mad:

(And it really pisses me off when people say stuff like "well she won't be safe when she comes out")

[budda]

Sorry, his Ex girlfriend as you say.

Tagging has been proven to be really useful and really quite effective, I dont see why she should be treated any differently.

You have to treat her according to what she has been convicted of, nothing else.

[Aladdin]

I watched Question Time for all of two minutes last night and I had to change channels.

Some Conservative MP or other was replying to a member of the audience who had said more or less what bongbudda just wrote, and he was saying that Carr should not be allowed out under the tagging scheme as she was clearly evil and a participant in one of the worst murders in the last 50 years :rolleyes: . Even Dimbleby had to correct him and point out that she had not participated in the murder in any way.

Yet again we have a ratings-concerned government making a mockery of the legal system and bowing to the unbalanced, cynical hypocrite tabloid press. :mad: :mad:

[budda]

Will they be able to do this though, because as I said I know that Blunket was kicked back by the EU over his tampering with sentancing after the juges ruling.

[byny]

Really - anyone looking at it objectively should just see

Offender: Maxine car
Offence: perverting the course of justice (Or whatever the wording is)

and then judge it on those merits. It should have sod all to do with Ian Huntleys chrime or the media stupidity.

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by byny
Offender: Maxine car
Offence: perverting the course of justice (Or whatever the wording is)



Exactly.
How I see it is she kept her gob shut for too long, if she had just been a bit more honest in the early days she would have saved wasting a lot of police time, the parents would probably not have such a long wait to find out what happened to the girls. I can understand why she didnt speak out initially but lets face it this was one of the cases which hit major headlines nationwide, obviously when the police started questioning him and her about there where abouts I think she should have been thinking "hhhmmm whats being going on" and spoke up a lot sooner.
Regardless of who we are talking about Im still of the opinion that if a judge gives a sentence of 1/2 years or whatever then the sentence should be served, just because someome behaved themselves shouldnt automatically mean early release.

[Kermit]

This is what Ive been saying since 1997.

Look at the way they enacted a retrospective law- something that flies in the face of 500 years fo legal doctrine- just to spite Jeffrey Archer (who probably deserved it, but still).

Look at the way they want to ban trials by jury for "small" crimes.

Look at the way they want to stop illegal immigrants by removing their right to appeal, and how they appoint those on immigration panels not according to empathy and understanding but according to how quickly the person will decide.

And now they are doing this- preventing someone from gaining early release simplty because the person she covered for killed two little girls. She is no danger to the public, so why should she be in prison?

But all politicians are like this, look at the way Michael Howard tried to get tariffs for the killers of James Bulger increased not because of any moral argument (in my opinion the trial judge set a tariff ten years too low, and it should have been rectified) but because The Sun was clamouring for it.

[Aladdin]

Becky,

That's a different debate though. The issue here is that whether good or bad idea, there is a provision for prisoners to be released early under the tagging scheme. Maxine Carr was entitled to this scheme but was singled out and blacklisted because of popular hysteria and the power of the gutter press. Not only that is wrong, it is also unlawful.

[Char_Baby]

at the end of the day shes not the one who killed the girls, whether she knew he did it or not when she lied to the police is irrelevant, if other offenders of the same crime are allowed out under the electronic tagging scheme why isnt she allowed to have that chance as well? its only because of the media that blunkett has ruled this

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Maxine Carr was entitled to this scheme but was singled out and blacklisted because of popular hysteria and the power of the gutter press.

Yes, I have to agree that is wrong.

[Namaste]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Maxine Carr was entitled to this scheme but was singled out and blacklisted because of popular hysteria and the power of the gutter press. Not only that is wrong, it is also unlawful.

The media is a powerful force and they can twist anything... thus I don't trust a word they say. Look what they did to the Kilshaws... who, might I add are extremely different in real life compared to on television.

As for covering for the murder of the girls, perhaps she was afraid, if a man is capable of killing 2 children what would he do to an adult? It can't have been easy for her at all...

Finally, with the publicity she's going to get, being tagged and allowed out ain't gonna be a barrel of laughs because people will have seen her on TV and will know who she is. If I were in her position I wouldn't leave the house anyway because being out of prison would be just as frightening as being behind bars.

[Whowhere]

She's dishonest, she'll be released early, won't be able to find herself a job and will live off the taxpayer until she dies, probably with an expensive police protection team.
Where's the justice in that?

[HunnyPot]

Originally posted by Whowhere
She's dishonest, she'll be released early, won't be able to find herself a job and will live off the taxpayer until she dies, probably with an expensive police protection team.
Where's the justice in that?

There are worse people who live off the taxpayer. She'll live off people's tax in prison too, might as well face the music.

[Whowhere]

that isn't the point. She was given a sentence, she should serve it.
What good will a tag do now? She has committed the crime, I find it highly unlikely she will do it again, which is why she should remain in prison as a punishment.

[budda]

What? You say she wont do it again, so surely she has learned her lesson.

The tagging IS part of her sentance, it has serious restrictions on where she can go and when.

Maybe if the public were re-assured that this is part of her sentance and that rehabilitation of offendors can work then she would be able to get a job and return to 'normal' life.

[Makaveli UK]

I hope she is released, as it will show all these politicaly correct do gooders who insist on letting out criminals years/months before the end of there jail time how stupid the whole tagging schem really is.

[lil_minx]

Im in favour of her being released with the tagging system.
She is going to have no quality of life whether in prison or out of prison. She isnt entitled to witness protection, and whilst police have a duty to keep her safe, she is going to have a terrible time! Even if she is out of prison on this tagging stystem she is such a public figure of hate that in effect, she's serving a lfie sentence for what she did.

Rightly or wrongly, i empathise with her and i know if i was in her position, as terrible as it may seem, i would have done the same thing for the man I loved.

[lil_minx]

Originally posted by Whowhere
She's dishonest, she'll be released early, won't be able to find herself a job and will live off the taxpayer until she dies, probably with an expensive police protection team.
Where's the justice in that?

According to Carr shes hoping (nievly) that she will be able to return to a job and support herself.

[lil_minx]

I think tagging should be enforced as part of many more sentences than it currently is.. as part of monitoring the rehabilitation of convictees.

[byny]

Originally posted by Makaveli UK
I hope she is released, as it will show all these politicaly correct do gooders who insist on letting out criminals years/months before the end of there jail time how stupid the whole tagging schem really is.

JESUS WEPT!! The woman didn't kill anyone. She has served time she was meant to and is being treated like any other prisoner who has committed the same crime. FFS she can expect to live her life away from freaks who want to make her life hell.

and what is so bad about 'do-gooders' is there something wrong with doing good now?

[budda]

Its nice to see my old thread being brought up again, I'd completely forgoten about it.

As for tagging as a general concept, they are increasing the use of it, its cheaper and in a lot of cases more effective than making people serve out their whole sentance.

They are making the system more complex though and bringing GPS into it as well so you can track their movements in real time. Personally that does twig a little nerve in me, the prospect of Big Brother in that is great. That and our Home Secretary appears to be some sort of Nazi, right to trial by jury? say goodbye!

[lil_minx]

George Orwell REALLY was ahead of his time...

Its quite shocking really...

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Makaveli UK
I hope she is released, as it will show all these politicaly correct do gooders

Who are they then? Why is it anything to do with "political correctness (whatever that is)? Whats a "do gooder"?

So many questions, so little time...

[dantheman]

Maxine Carr is just a silly cow who happened to have an evil b/f.
She shouldn't have lied to the police but she isn't dangerous.
Releasing her with a tag is a decent idea, if they'd have just let her out early without the tag then that would have been wrong though.

[lil_minx]

Originally posted by dantheman
Maxine Carr is just a silly cow who happened to have an evil b/f.
She shouldn't have lied to the police but she isn't dangerous.


:yes:

she is serving, as i said, a life sentence for her actions. Others in the exact same position can go back and lead a reletivly normal life. Carr would find it very, very difficult to do that.

[Luce]

She isnt entitled to witness protection, and whilst police have a duty to keep her safe, she is going to have a terrible time! Could you not say that if she will have such a bad time, it's safer for her to be in prison? Especially if her quality of life won't be much better outside?

[lil_minx]

you could.. and maybe it would be safer for her in prison, but surrounded with murderers and criminals who hate her equally maybe its not safe there either.. but as tax payers we shouldnt have to pay all that money to keep her in prison longer than needs be, when she could be relased on a tagging system, kept safe as p[ossible and have the opportunity (however slim) to be able to rebuild her life. She wants to be let out, she has the right to be let out in keeping with the fact that others of similar crimes have been let out on the tagging system. We cant keep criminals locked up in prison longer than needs be purely for their safety. Criminals in prsion take up enough of our money. She can be given a new identity, relocated abroad etc...

[Aladdin]

How about a a judge imposing a relocation in Rebekah Wade's house (the editor of the S*n) or perhaps in Paul Dacre's residence (the editor of the BlackMail)?

Perhaps if Carr has to spend a year in their houses and those fine 'newspaper' editors have to experience first hand the lynch mobs and the bricks going through their windows, they'd think twice before inciting hatred and knee-jerk bigotry...

[lil_minx]

very good point...

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by lil_minx
She can be given a new identity, relocated abroad etc...

Totally wrong in my opinion, unless she can pay for this out of her own pocket.
Why should any criminal be given new identities especially when its the Tax payer that pays.

[Blagsta]

Again, treating all "criminals" the same Becky. They're not, they're people all with their own individual stories.

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Again, treating all "criminals" the same Becky. They're not, they're people all with their own individual stories.

Relocate criminals abroad ? I cant afford a two week holiday abroad so why should someone who has been convicted of crime move away and have all this special treatment ?

[Blagsta]

There you go again, convicted of "crime". What crime? In what circumstances? And don't you think we all have a responsibility to weaker members of our society? (which IMO Maxine Carr is. A friend of mine worked with her in Holloway, and is convinced that the only crime she is really guilty of is of loving Ian Huntley and being a bit naive and stupid).

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by Blagsta
There you go again, convicted of "crime". What crime? In what circumstances? And don't you think we all have a responsibility to weaker members of our society? (which IMO Maxine Carr is. A friend of mine worked with her in Holloway, and is convinced that the only crime she is really guilty of is of loving Ian Huntley and being a bit naive and stupid).

I have already stated somewhere I feel sorry for her and the reason she probably lied was because of him. She has been on trial and found guilty so she is a criminal wether you like it or not. She would have had plenty of time to change her response when she was being held, but she didnt.

So she is now a criminal, why should the tax payer pay for her to have a new identity or be relocated abroad ?
Look at all the kids whos parents cant send them on a holiday so is it fair that she or anyone else gets relocated and kids/teenagers who have never commited a crime get nothing ?

[Blagsta]

Because some idiot will probably kill her otherwise.

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Because some idiot will probably kill her otherwise.

She does not deserve to be killed and neither did Holly or Jessica.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
She does not deserve to be killed and neither did Holly or Jessica.

Well exactly.

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Well exactly.

but we still dont pay for her security, she has cost us thousands already.
The money that it would cost to give someone like her a new identity yet this country cant find the money for the NHS system, or for the disabled people.
Commit an offence and you get everything paid for, fuck you if your a law abiding citizen.

[Blagsta]

Oh well, lets hope someone kills her quick then, before we waste anymore tax payers money.

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Oh well, lets hope someone kills her quick then, before we waste anymore tax payers money.

I wouldnt wish that upon her.

[Blagsta]

Neither would I.

Do you also think its a disgrace that we can find the money to bomb Iraq but not to fund hospitals? Often its not a matter of money, its lack of political will. That and the public not wanting to pay more tax to pay for public services.

So what do you think should happen?

[byny]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Oh well, lets hope someone kills her quick then, before we waste anymore tax payers money.

Jeeeeze...so then that person will be a murderer which makes them 10 times worse than Maxine Carr. People like you make me sick

[Kermit]

Originally posted by byny
Jeeeeze...so then that person will be a murderer which makes them 10 times worse than Maxine Carr. People like you make me sick

Notice the sarcasm- he was illustrating the stupidity of the cost argument.

This thread pissed me off last time, and it's pissing me off again. Becky, come and live in the real world- she was convicted of perverting the course of justice, and it would be the same crime if she'd lied about a motoring offence for him. She had NOPTHING TO DO with the killing of those girls. But a lot of people think she does, because papers like the HateMail have implicated her as such. She was labelled "Hindley Mark Two" in Holloway- the same feeling is outside as well as inside.

Why shouldn't she get a new identity for her own priotection? Because she is- shock! horror!- a criminal? Oh my Lord, how evil she must be, she must be left alone to "face the consequences of her actions".

Jesus H. Christ. Ever heard of the saying "done the crime, done the time"? She has PAID HER DEBT TO SOCIETY- she is now entitled to the protection of that society. And the protection schemes don't just protect criminals, they protect witnesses and police officers and prison officers just as much, despite what rags like the HateMail try and claim.

Realise that she is in danger if she is not protected- you don't wish death on her, but to argue that she has to pay for her own protection herself is moronically stupid, as you know full well she can't afford it, so would be in mortal danger. You'd expect the same if you were in her shoes, and you'd expect the same if you witnesses a gangland shooting involving death threats to you, so quit with the usual tripe about taxpayers' money.

Society protects it's members, and once they have served their punishment they are members of society once more.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
but we still dont pay for her security, she has cost us thousands already.

Commit an offence and you get everything paid for, fuck you if your a law abiding citizen.

...shows that you don't understand the system at all.

Mary Bell, to use a very high-profile example, got a new identity and she had things set up. But she had to go and work for it, she has to pay a mortgage and she has to pay for her shopping and she was paying tax to pay for her protection. Despite what the papers always try and claim, being on a protection programme for the long-term isn't all free holidays and fun in the sun at someone else's expense.

Besides which, Maxine Carr paid tax on her earnings. Or doesn't that count?

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by Kermit
...shows that you don't understand the system at all.



Show me where I said I knew anything about the system !!

She had NOPTHING TO DO with the killing of those girls.

Tell me where in this thread I said she did.


and why is the system so bad ? I tell you why this justice system is so bad its because people come out with comments like
Because she is- shock! horror!- a criminal?

Well yes she is a criminal, if I get interview by police i know that if I dont tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth then im gonna get done for it. So what if its just a minor little offence thats no excuse to lie to the police in a case of this nature.

shes a criminal because she broke the law, so stop trying to make out she isnt.

[girl with sharp teeth]

.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
Why should any criminal be given new identities especially when its the Tax payer that pays.

I'm not saying she's not a criminal, but I was pointing out that there are varying degrees of criminal.

In many eyes Carr is inextricably linked with Huntley's crimes, and people see her as a child murderer and will want to "teach her a lesson". She lied, she got found out, she's served her punishment (which, again because of Huntley, was much harsher than it should have been).

So why is she not entitled to the protection of the law now that she has paid her debt to society? She broke the law once, and she's had her punishment for it- why should she be left to fend for herself, in great danger, just because she broke the law?

Because she's a criminal it means that she's not entitled to anything, is that it? Shall we just lock everyone who's ever broken a law up and throw away the key? Shall we just kill them now and save everyone the hassle of having to protect them.

Humanh rights. Do some reading into them.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
So what if its just a minor little offence thats no excuse to lie to the police in a case of this nature.

So if she lied about him speeding, that would be better?

It's the same crime, she's unfortunate that because of Huntley she needs to be protected from people, if she lied about him breaking into a house or something no-one would care.

Do you think it's a barrel of laughs for her, having to change everything about her just to be safe? Doesn't everyone deserve to be safe, isn't that the DUTY OF THE STATE?

Or, again, is the fact that she broke the law once enough to strip her of all her human rights and needs?

[lil_minx]

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
Totally wrong in my opinion, unless she can pay for this out of her own pocket.
Why should any criminal be given new identities especially when its the Tax payer that pays.

im just giving options that are open to her, stay in prison for her full term for protection, be released on taggingm be moved abroad.. im not saying i agree with all these options. :)

[lil_minx]

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
I have already stated somewhere I feel sorry for her and the reason she probably lied was because of him. She has been on trial and found guilty so she is a criminal wether you like it or not. She would have had plenty of time to change her response when she was being held, but she didnt.

So she is now a criminal, why should the tax payer pay for her to have a new identity or be relocated abroad ?
Look at all the kids whos parents cant send them on a holiday so is it fair that she or anyone else gets relocated and kids/teenagers who have never commited a crime get nothing ?

Others may argue, that as a criminal she should be kept in prison for her full sentence and not released on tagging... it costs a FORTUNE! of tax payers money.. tax payers money gets spent on housing criminals in prison, and i think if our money goes towards keeoing her safe then so be it. Your money is going to be spent on her, whatever happens. She's paid taxes throughout her life.. I think that it would be a mistake on the part of all concerned f she was released without a new identity, without being carfeully rehoused where ever it may be. We dont want to add another murder case to the list, and that is what it may come to. As ive said, she is serving a life sentence already for what she did, i think we need some compassion. Shes served her time.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by byny
Jeeeeze...so then that person will be a murderer which makes them 10 times worse than Maxine Carr. People like you make me sick

If you'd followed the thread, you would realise I was being sarcastic.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
Well yes she is a criminal, if I get interview by police i know that if I dont tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth then im gonna get done for it. So what if its just a minor little offence thats no excuse to lie to the police in a case of this nature.

shes a criminal because she broke the law, so stop trying to make out she isnt.

There you go again. Wow, she's a criminal. So fucking what. So am I, so are you I bet, even if you haven't been convicted of anything. I bet you've broken the speed limit, or taped music off the radio, or videotaped something off telly, or copied a CD or something.

As I have said a few times, don't just think "criminal - arrrgh! She must be bad". Thats very narrow minded. Think about what crime in which circumstances.

[BeckyBoo]

Im not disputing what any of you have said. She has paid for what she has done, she has done her time and should be left alone. She didnt murder anyone and yes it must be horrible to have a partner that murdered two kids.
But regardless of what anyone says here I get the feeling that nobody ever thinks of the 'victim', the 'victims' family, its these people who I feel sorry for. Nobody ever talks about these people, all the sympathy goes to the convict.........oh he was mentally ill, oh she was scared of her boyfriend, oh she was a drug addict, oh he was an alcoholic, oh he came from a broken home............its no exuse to MURDER someone.
Maxine Carr had plenty opportunity to tell the police sooner any information she had, she wasted vital police time and could have saved the family longer anguish if she had just told the truth sooner and i think this is why people are very bitter towards her.

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by Blagsta
There you go [b]again. Wow, she's a criminal. So fucking what.

Blagsta sorry im not even gonna reply to that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Blagsta]

Oh for fucks sake Becky. This argument about "no one ever thinks of the victim" is nonsense. Of course people do. Why is it an either/or?

[lil_minx]

Ive lied to the police on behalf of my boyfriend, fair enough unlike Carr i had proof and knew for sure he was innocent but i did it, and they found out. I would do it again, and if it turned out he was guilty, its my fault for being so bloody stupid. But at the end of the day, thats all she is, stupid. She has served her sentence. If it wasnt for the fact that the murder was so widely publicised and so much hate was brought about by the papers etc, then people wouldnt give a flying fuck about her being given a tag and released and protected. She is still human. We still have a duty to protect her.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
Blagsta sorry im not even gonna reply to that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well whats the point in you being on this thread then?

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Oh for fucks sake Becky. This argument about "no one ever thinks of the victim" is nonsense. Of course people do. Why is it an either/or?


Blagsta please change your attitude or piss off.

Debate with me but dont be fucking sarcastic at every chance you can cos at the end of the day I dont agree with what your saying.

So to make people like me listen to what your saying start debating like others here have. They are putting things in different perspectives, they aint been sarky at every given chance.

[lil_minx]

Some people would say she behaved MORALLY as apposed to immorally.. she protected a loved one, somebody close to her rather than turn against him in order to help people she wasnt close to.

Some very famous thinkers have worked and discussed morals, and suggested it is better to act in that way

not saying i agree

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by lil_minx
Some people would say she behaved MORALLY as apposed to immorally.. she protected a loved one, somebody close to her rather than turn against him in order to help people she wasnt close to.



I see exactly what your saying and I agree with that. But one thing that does just get in the way of my method of thinking and probably many others is the fact that she lied for so long.

Lets go back to when she was questioned, the police would not have just popped in to see her and asked where she and Ian Huntley were on these dates. The police would have said they were investigating a very serious crime and im sure she would have been aware that it was a really serious crime........yet she just did not tell the truth.
Now thats whats probably sticking in peoples minds.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
Blagsta please change your attitude or piss off.

Debate with me but dont be fucking sarcastic at every chance you can cos at the end of the day I dont agree with what your saying.

So to make people like me listen to what your saying start debating like others here have. They are putting things in different perspectives, they aint been sarky at every given chance.

Sorry, but you are not listening. The argument about "no one thinks of the victim" is irrelevant, yet you keep bringing it up.

[Blagsta]

See Becky, I do try and engage you in debate

Originally posted by Blagsta
Do you also think its a disgrace that we can find the money to bomb Iraq but not to fund hospitals? Often its not a matter of money, its lack of political will. That and the public not wanting to pay more tax to pay for public services.

So what do you think should happen?

but you ignore these questions. Thats why I'm short with you.

[lil_minx]

Originally posted by Aspartame
Indeed she did have the opportunity to, and I don't know why she didn't, but I'm sure she had her reasons.

I'm not going to say it wasn't stupid of her to lie, because it was, and she's paying for the stupidity with a prison sentence.

If she was to come out of prison and just be "let loose" so to speak, it could (probably would) be the same as giving her the death sentence.
Something she'd not even get in the US (although her boyfriend probably would've).

Like the others have said, she will be a member of society when she's been released and should be protected as you or I would expect to be.

I don't think having to be a completely different person will be an easy life at all.

i completly agree with that...

Becky i dont think i agree to the moral/immoral thing purely because so many people were hurt by her decision.

i think what sticks in many people's minds is the hate that has been brought about by the papers, people have a deep and un-neccesary hate, tis those people she must be protected from.

In regards to the tax payers money argument you put across, if somebody takes 'justice' into their own hands, and i dont doubt it would happen we will fork out untold amounts in putting that person to trial, to putting him/her in prision, if youre concerned about money its less risky and potentially cheaper to rename her, send her abroad. I think, no amount of money is too great to protect somebody..

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by lil_minx
In regards to the tax payers money argument you put across, if somebody takes 'justice' into their own hands, and i dont doubt it would happen we will fork out untold amounts in putting that person to trial, to putting him in prision, if youre concerned about money its less risky and potentially cheaper to rename her, send her abroad. [/B]

Id disagree with the hate you mentioned brought on by the media. I strongly beleive its because two children were murdered and people like myself find it very hard to understand how anyone could keep quiet about where she was knowing that this was a very serious crime.
But again she has served her sentence for this and apparently been a model prisoner, so there you go. Many people will probably now feel not as much anger to her like in the beginning. At the beginning we the public didnt know the story but bit by bit the story has come out.

and yes i have to agree with the part of your post i quoted. It does make sense what your saying.

[byny]

Originally posted by Blagsta
If you'd followed the thread, you would realise I was being sarcastic.

Ah - Apologies then!

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by Blagsta



but you ignore these questions. Thats why I'm short with you.

I missed that post.........thats why I didnt reply. all you had to do was repost it and ask me my opinion. It is quite easy to miss posts you know.

[lil_minx]

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
Id disagree with the hate you mentioned brought on by the media. I strongly beleive its because two children were murdered and people like myself find it very hard to understand how anyone could keep quiet about where she was knowing that this was a very serious crime.
But again she has served her sentence for this and apparently been a model prisoner, so there you go. Many people will probably now feel not as much anger to her like in the beginning. At the beginning we the public didnt know the story but bit by bit the story has come out.

and yes i have to agree with the part of your post i quoted. It does make sense what your saying.

oh i think it makes sense, a lot of sense, but i cant agree to it purely because of the amount of harm she caused.

I felt DEEP hate for her, purely because of the daily mail that my dad reads. It wasnt until i found out that as well as anger, shock and all the expected emotions, i felt a little understanding and compassion.

I just think, no matter what a person has done, even somebody like suddam hussein for example, i think that person has a right to protection. No matter how wrong, evil and twisted. I know its a burden to know our taxes may go towards her protection instead of other more desirable places, but, i think we have a duty. And i think she has a right to be on the taggin system.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
I missed that post.........thats why I didnt reply. all you had to do was repost it and ask me my opinion. It is quite easy to miss posts you know.

Sorry, I know I'm a bit short sometimes. I've also had some strange hospital results back today, so I think I'm a bit stressed.

But anyway, back to the thread...do you not agree that society has a duty to look after people? Even if they are "criminals"? Do you complain about taxes being wasted on other things (like bombing Iraq)? Are you willing to pay more tax for better services?

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by lil_minx
And i think she has a right to be on the taggin system.

Yeah agree with that also, if I remember correctly Kermit pointed out to me that others in her situation were allowed to to do that.

In the beginning the full facts didnt come out, the media made her out as though she was the murderer and she was evil. Thats why im saying now that I dont think people feel as bitter towards her because so much more information has come forward since she was first arrested.

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by Blagsta
do you not agree that society has a duty to look after people? Even if they are "criminals"?

Well after much persuasion and talking here im kind of changing my mind, so yeah in some cases lol

[lil_minx]

I do think you have a point becky (with the feelings of bitterness)

Oh becky, youre coming over to the dark side now!

[Blagsta]

We'll make a lefty out of you yet Becky! ;)

[Kermit]

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
In the beginning the full facts didnt come out, the media made her out as though she was the murderer and she was evil. Thats why im saying now that I dont think people feel as bitter towards her because so much more information has come forward since she was first arrested.

But people still do- she had to be kept on the sex wing of Holloway because the other inmates were a danger to her, and there are no indications that it is any better outside than it was inside.

Leaving aside the jail issue (she has served four times as long as most people for the same offence, given that remand is taken as part of the jail sentence) the point remains that, because it is such a high-profile case, the public pose a great and serious risk to Carr.

To deny her the protection because she is a criminal is stupid- does she not deserve protecting? Oh, and the "victim" argument is spurious, Becky- perverting the course of justice does not HAVE a victim.

[lil_minx]

Originally posted by Kermit
perverting the course of justice does not HAVE a victim.

I dont know... In taking so long to come forward, she caused the families of Holly and Jessican much more pain and anguish than needs be, in a sense, the families are the victims of her perversion of the course of justice.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by lil_minx
I dont know... In taking so long to come forward, she caused the families of Holly and Jessican much more pain and anguish than needs be, in a sense, the families are the victims of her perversion of the course of justice.

I don't think she did, because the gap easn't particularly long and they knew it was him anyway.

The only person she harmed was her, with the guilt.

[byny]

Originally posted by Kermit
I don't think she did, because the gap easn't particularly long and they knew it was him anyway.

The only person she harmed was her, with the guilt.

Surely she should be commended for her refusal to hide away? She is prepared to stick her neck out and say 'OK I served my time, I did wrong, Now here I am in society where you can see me for who I am' - anyone who seriously has thoughts of killing her just because she was associated with a murderer is plain mental - surely!?

[BlackArab]

Just a quick point. I did read that the reason she lied for him was because of a previous case against him where he was found not guilty and then tried to commit suicide.

I may be wrong on the exact details but the impression I got was that he had her convinced he was innocent and going to be stitched up again, she was afraid for him and did what I imagine a lot of people would do for a loved one, lied for him.

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by BlackArab

she was afraid for him and did what I imagine a lot of people would do for a loved one, lied for him.

Now seriously if the police carted me off to the station or even at my house i couldnt lie, they would see straight through me. I'd start stuttering and getting all confussled lol.
Nah ive told little white lies but get me in the police station and I know for a fact i couldnt lie.

But I do agree people do it for the reasons you stated.

[BlackArab]

Thats the sad thing Becks, I have seen people do all manner of stupid things when they were in love.

[Aladdin]

Well the lynch mobs and the tabloid press have, as usual, had it their way thanks to our spineless Home Secretary.

Carr to stay behind bars (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12989364,00.html)

What a sad country we live in...

[ladymuck]

So Carr stays in a few more months - big deal. Parole isn't automatically granted anyway. Why shouldn't justice satisfy public opinion?

[Moraji]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Well the lynch mobs and the tabloid press have, as usual, had it their way thanks to our spineless Home Secretary.

Carr to stay behind bars (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12989364,00.html)

What a sad country we live in...

What an absolute fucking joke of a legal system this is. "undermine public confidence"? Is that just a euphemism for 'if the sun says lock her up, we'll just do what they say rather than what's been recommended to us by people who actually know what they're talking about'?

I tell you this has undermined my confidence in the legal system, but then I don't own my own media empire (yet, anyway). What a fucking disgrace.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by ladymuck
So Carr stays in a few more months - big deal. Parole isn't automatically granted anyway. Why shouldn't justice satisfy public opinion?

'cos then we'd have lynch mobs, public floggings and executions. Do you want that?

[LadyJade]

You beat me to it Blagsta. Exactly.

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by Blagsta
'cos then we'd have lynch mobs, public floggings and executions.

With Tony Martin as chief executioner...