|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 3, 2003 23:40:18 GMT
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3078216.stmThat just makes me want to be sick. I'm sure this is the most appalling case of paedophilia I've ever read about. When I get stressed I smoke a cigarette. If I can't do that then I kick something, break something or bang my fists on my desk and sigh loudly for the best part of an hour. I imagine everybody else manages stress in a similar way. A five year sentence, honest to God, I don't know. In this country, he'll be out in three, and will probably also spend most of his time somewhere other than real prison. The psychologist study says, oh, he probably won't do it again. Because, yeah, clearly after five years of abusing children he's gotten bored and probably wants to move on. The judge and the psychologist need stabbing in the eyes with a biro for being so inexcusably soft. I can understand them thinking it difficult to give him a life sentence because he's a father of three. But the knobs of society can't think on our level. Will his children ever want to see him again? I think not. That man deserves a life sentence. Unfortunately that's all our legal system can give him. I agree with others that those who commit sexual crimes of a vile nature like this should be chemically castrated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 3, 2003 23:56:14 GMT
Last year, spotting spelling mistake on BBC News Online was like finding a tenner in a jacket you've not worn since last winter. Surprising, and good. Just recently there have been many errors. Usually, I wouldn't say a thing, but some poor old grandmother living in remote cornwall, who has just had the internet installed on her ageing 133mhz Pentium Win 3.1 pc, is searching with Google to find out who the Hell 'Gorge W Bush' is!  |
|
|
|
Post by Laura Lyman on Sept 4, 2003 18:36:38 GMT
It is the most peverse disgusting thing i have ever heard. i can't believe Lord Reed gave him 5 years. there's no doubt he'll be out in 2 with good behaviour. I'm a law student so have studied a lot of Lord Reed's decisions. He makes a lot i disagree with but this is the worst yet. It's appalling, there is no justice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 19, 2003 12:41:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by madcap on Sept 20, 2003 13:44:58 GMT
This whole Taylor case has really hit the headlines in Scotland, and as both a parent and police officer, find the judgement of Lord Reed beyond any human comprehension. If it is possible for anything positive to come from such a reprehensible act, then not only does it look as if a sentencing review will increase the sentence, but new legislation is being considered by the Scottish Executive to make such crimes punishable by mandatory life imprisonment.
|
|
|
|
Post by pðtù§ on Sept 20, 2003 17:19:47 GMT
Five years is a disgrace. Do judges just make sentences up as they go along. I think all prison sentences should have guidlines, ie, you do this, you get sent down for this long.... and so on. If I spend half and hour doing a bit of news searching, I bet I could find dozens more crimes that are so much less appalling than this, where the offender has been sent to prison for longer than five years.
But fives years? A horrendously misjudged sentence.
Ask yourself this. If you don't pay a fine and refuse to do, you'd probably end up in prison for a month or so. If you abuse children, sentences handed out start at two months in prison upwards (I point out Gary Glitter, four month sentence, out halfway through. I remember a joke about this, "Gary glitter has been released after serving only two months of a four month sentence... well, he did always enjoy half-terms" I liked the joked, I was appalled by the leniency).
|
|
sig007
White House Intern
Posts: 55
|
Post by sig007 on Sept 23, 2003 21:41:19 GMT
As a parent I am absolutley horrified by this sentance, what more abhorent crime can their be against humanity and social integration when this sort of behaviour gets the leniancy that was shown here, The psychological implecations are far to far reaching for me too think about. It is time our judicial system (once the benchmark that the civilised world set it's stall by) was completley overhauled and mandatory minimums set. for instance peodophilia should be set at about 70 years solitary confinement ( i know this is actually not allowed but this is a subject i feel strongly about) and proper food water and exercise - i want them to live long and be able to think about what horrors they commited and who they affected for a long time. I am all for re-habilitation for offende rs but this is not theft or joy riding - this is something that is absolutley inconceiveable to the average human being. may the judge who gave this sentance be gracious enough for this person to live next door to him and see how it affects his community - i think not............  |
|
|
|
Post by Laura Lyman on Sept 24, 2003 0:03:52 GMT
There are so many bad sentences being given out. This case is the most outrageous example. Another area in which too light a sentence is often given is that of drink driving. I find it difficult to understand how anyone who kills someone with their car while under the influence can be let off with anything less than vehicular manslaughter and given a substantial sentence. Sadly many get off with a few years in prison or a driving ban. it's disgraceful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 30, 2003 16:18:28 GMT
This just in.
The five year sentence is to be challenged on the grounds of leniency.
A psychologist classed this evil man as 'low risk', so not only would I question the judge, I think this psychologist needs investigating. Anybody who says raping a 13-month old baby makes for a 'low risk' criminal is either stupid or something of a paedophile themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by madcap on Sept 30, 2003 22:33:59 GMT
The Crown are, hopefully succesfully appelaining the leniency of the sentence, however Scottish news is tonight reporting that Taylor's legal team are also launching an appeal against the length of his term of imprisonment as he's a first offender !
I have serious issues with whichever solicitor is handling this case for coming up with the grounds for appeal in the first place. No doubt thinking of a QC's fee for appearing in front of the Court of session is helping him/ her sleep at night because their conscience should be tormenting them to hell.
I really do hate lawyers.
Rant over.......for now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 24, 2003 15:55:51 GMT
|
|
