The chronicles of Ruin, continued.
Call me Ishmael said....intelligence is knowing what to do when you don't know what to do.
Anonymous said... When I don't know what to do,I come here.
10 September 2009 22:59
Friday, 14 January 2011
SERIAL KILLER MUST DIE IN PRISON.
Iraq Ripper must die in prison, appeal court rules
Tony Blair, the Iraq Ripper.
Judges reject Blair plea, and say the interests of justice demand 'nothing less' than a whole life sentence.
The Iraq Ripper, Tony Blair, will spend the rest of his life behind bars, the court of appeal has ruled. The former prime minister, now 60 and known as MoneyBags, was convicted in 2010 of murdering thousands of men, women and children. He was ordered to serve "whole life minimum term" last year under 2003 criminal justice legislation giving judges the power to set tariffs in murder cases. Blair originally received 1000 life terms after being convicted of the murders of a token 1000 innocent people after his Old Bailey trial. He pleaded guilty to a further 30,000 counts of attempted murder. A minimum term of 30 years was set before he could be considered for parole. The serial killer challenged last year's ruling by Mr Justice Slag that he should never be released on the grounds that the high court judge had failed to take into account evidence of his mental disorder at the time of the murders, or hear evidence from the clinical director of Broadmoor hospital. But the lord chief justice, Lord Slag, Mr Justice Calvert-Slag and Mr Justice Griffith Slag today rejected the appeal, arguing that the passage of time did not make his account of him being a "pretty, straight guy" at his trial any more likely to be credible now than it was then. We also entirely reject the appellant's claim that he must answer to his friend, God, for his wickedness. This may or may not, in the long run, be the case, but in the meantime we are putting his poxy arse behind bars, for good. "We are not, of course, suggesting that the man who perpetrated these crimes was, in any ordinary sense of the words, normal or average. He is an utter cunt. The sheer abnormality of his actions themselves suggested some element of mental disorder," said Lord Slag. He added that there was no doubt Mr Justice Slag took into account the fact that Blair was disturbed when he committed the murders when he set the "whole life'' sentence last year. "There is however no reason to conclude that [Blair's] claim that he genuinely believed that he was acting under divine instructions to fulfill God's will carries any greater conviction now than it did when it was rejected by the jury," said Lord Slag. . The three judges ruled that in any event the nature of the murders justified nothing less in the interests of justice than a whole life sentence. "An examination of the entire catalogue of the offences as a whole demonstrates that this was criminal conduct at the extreme end of horror. "Each of the attempted murders, as well as each of the murder offences, taken on its own was a dreadful crime of utmost brutality: taking all the offences together we have been considering an accumulation of criminality of exceptional magnitude which went far beyond the legislative criteria for a whole life order. "Even accepting that an element of mental disturbance was intrinsic to the commission of these crimes, the interests of justice require nothing less than a whole life order." Blair's lawyers have 14 days to apply to the supreme court to see if they can appeal further on a point of general public importance - ie money. Clearly, our client has a great deal of money, they said, and clearly he should not be treated as a common criminal, even if, clearly, he is.
21 comments:
HenryJ
said...
Quite happy to wait for this guy to go to trial,it'll happen,a greasy pole is hard to climb but easier to slide down,he will meet lots who he kicked and clambered over to get his loot,the same one's will be waiting for him on the way down.
Funny how the law can reinvent itself, tie itself in non-sequiteurs and squeeze out the maximum amount of retribution when it comes to a relatively small scale killer like Peter Sutcliffe and yet manage to ignore the real monsters, like Bush and Blair and Cheney and Rumsfeld, Straw and Howard, in fact, as MR says, the whole gang of them.
Seems implicit in recent events that we are divided into the prosecute-able and the immune, seems that no-one is going to take away their license to kill.
As for Tunisia, mr dtp, it's all down to high food and fuel prices, unemployment and a dictatorial govament that nobody voted for; fancy that.
I suppose it is something, next week; he looked, after the last, feeble Chilcotting, rather like a man who had got it all done and dusted. Do w epay, separately, for Imelda, anyone know?
Mr. Ishmael, of course, transposes the judicial verdict in the appeal of the so-called Yorkshire Ripper into a fantasy scenario in which a politician is brought to justice for imposing a war which caused the death of many more than Peter Sutcliffe would have been able to do, had he lived to be hundred without being apprehended. This device allows us to consider the relative guilt of the two men, the traditional immunity from prosecution of Heads of State who warmonger (until they find themselves on the losing side e.g. Saddam) and the inherant contradictions in the appeal verdict. We are asked to consider: was Sutcliffe mentally disturbed? If so, is mental illness something that can be recovered from, like the flu? Or is it more like an untreatable and fatal physical illness? Which category does the desire to kill lots of women fall into? Has Sutcliffe recovered from his mental illness? If so, should he ever be released, or, on the off chance that he might suffer a relapse, should he be banged up in perpetuity? And where does retribution fit in? Should there be a desire for retribution against someone who was not in his right mind, who would not have killed had he been in his right mind? And deterrance - if he is released does it give the message - hey, potential serial killers out there, you can have your fun, enjoy your killing spree and still serve a determinate sentence. Surely, such a consideration would have no impact on a potential killer....most of them seem to off themselves anyway, don't they, much to the relief of society, which really, really doesn't want to grapple with these big questions.
One might by extension, Ms Agatha, say that anyone who sets out to kill someone is necessarily unhinged, and therefore deserving of mercy and treatment rather than punishment. Killing people would therefore become mad rather than bad.
We have - for better or worse - adopted a system of justice which allots moral desert based not just on one's acts but also the consequences of same. I think though that we have gone too far and we seem to have decided to criminalise ordinary error and to allot punishment based on consequence rather than intent. An example. Which of us has not driven a car tired after a hard week's work? The nodding head, the spaced out brain, not even consciously negligent. Most of us got away with it but one poor lad crashes his van onto a railway line. A bunch of people get killed and he is in the jug for ten years. Was he any more wicked than us when we did exactly the same thing but with no consequences? it is a difficult question.
But let us consider a proper wickedness. Any reckless act will do - speeding very fast, drink-driving, dropping extinguishers off roofs... So let us recklessly take a shotgun, close our eyes and fire it randomly out of the window. You hit nobody; I kill a newborn baby; Mr Ishmael kills Tony Blair. Who was the most wicked? What should our punishments be?
It is a beguiling fantasy: Blair in a grey uniform with arrows on it, dragging a ball and chain but even if it did happen he`d think he was Nelson Mandela.
Mr. Mongoose says: "We have .... adopted a system of justice which allots moral desert based not just on one's acts but also the consequences of same." It is even more complicated than that, as, other than with absolute offences, for which intent matters not a jot, as in the case of administrative regulations and civil penalties created by statute, such as crimes against the traffic or highway code, there must be the actus reus (the prohibited act) and the mens rea (the intent)in order for a crime to be committed. After that is established, the individual characteristics of the crime and also of the offender are factors in determining the nature of the penalty. We have a system of individualised justice. There are then principles of sentencing, amongst which are punishment, individual deterrence, deterrence of others, proportionality and rehabilitation of the offender. However, if the offender is mentally ill in consequence of which he was unable to form the mens rea of the offence, then the prohibited act (serial murder, for example) has been committed, but the offender, because he was not capable of forming the intent, does not fall to be sentenced, but is committed instead to a secure institution for treatment of his illness. The two things should not be mixed up, which is precisely what the appellant judges did in the Sutcliffe appeal. The examples given by Mr. Mongoose are interesting, in that the consequences have far exceeded the intent, and the offender is punished for the consequences of what actually happened as opposed to what he intended to happen. This scenario is covered by what is known as the "eggshell skull ruling", which amounts to this: Mr Ishmael, for example, hits Mr Blair in the face, intending at worst to break his nose. It turns out that Mr Blair has a skull as thin as an eggshell and dies in consequence of a blow which should have delivered a minor injury only. Because Mr Ishmael intended to commit an unlawful act, although not an actual death; he is considered to have sufficient mens rea to be guilty of having killed the bloke. It is all terrifically interesting and complicated, which is why those clever fellows in London, in the High Courts are paid so much to sort this stuff out and keep the working classes in their place.
It is a blanket immunity, though, which covers Blair, outside any precedents or common law imperatives to prosecution and the Chilcotting has became virtually the sole pursuit which he suffers - the shredding of the expenses receipts, the bungs from Ecclestone and Mittal, these are enough to see most behind bars The examples of mr mongoose and ms agatha are elegantly framed, irrelevant, though, with regards to the crimes of GlobaCorp and its agents who have, in any event, before leaving office created new laws exemptng them from prosecution - Berlusconi the pimp and Dubya the Chimp to name but two of our great democrats, that Blair is both serial domestic larcenist and international conspirator is a measure of the man's criminality.
I think that we should but that increasingly we do not. We move towards consequences and away from mens rea. Error becomes crime; consequence becomes the measure for the penalty. Sutcliffe is obviously (was!) as mad as a snake. Sane people do not creep about at night hitting random ladies-of-the-night on their heads with a hammer. I make no argument about letting him out. A man as bonkers as that is probably best kept away from folk. But we keep him locked up so that the readers of the Redtops do not accuse the government - of whatever ilk - of going soft. Likewise countless others.
That Blair is immune from his just punishment is a different matter altogether. Likewise that there are now so many strict liability offences punishable by fixed penalties. The criminalising of error. Taxation of administrative incompetence. Horrible cant and vileness.
I sense that your knowledge and expertise in these matters trumps my own, Ms Agatha, but, hey, that is always the way one learns stuff.
And on reflection, before I hit the Send Button, I think that this is a fundamental undermining. I am fined as a criminal because I send in my tax return late. Some random electric device sends me a fixed penalty something and I am a criminal again. What was it? Too much garbage in the bin or unsorted garbage? I forget. But that undermines what the law is for. The law is the contract we all have with each other for when things go wrong. We should take to law in extremis when everything else has failed. It's not that way now. Just as Blair is immune, I at the other end am ever more prey for the rules of the state he and his like created. We lose respect for the law and then for each other and then we are lost.
And, Mr. Mongoose, it will only get worse. As the different data bases on the law abiding population join up and search programmes compile all the info that people have given for various purposes, increasingly the executive, administrative and judicial arms of the state overlap and combine to control, criminalise and leach off the essentially law abiding population. And why? Because they are more biddable. They have a stake in society. Something to lose. Because, essentially, they can.
Yep. Fines for poor administration of trivial shit. The cunts started off by making it an offence to fail to SORN your vehicle every fucking year.
You shouldn't have to SORN it at all. If you get caught driving your untaxed vehicle on the road then okay - pay the fine. But if your vehicle is untaxed but isn't on the fucking road then what does it matter? Even if it's rotting in a fucking shed - what does it matter? Really? And what is achieved by making me register a rotting vehicle as SORN every year?
What's that all about?
The cunts are changing the law again to further punish you for poor admin but I can't recall the detail just now.
It's the equivalent of fining you for not declaring that you have no TV every year and so will not be requiring a TV licence.
Although I do see that the DVLA now have "wheelclamping partners". Fucking parasite bastards. Every damn thing in the country is corrupted, measured and fixed penaltyed up to its arse. I despair of it all. Fucking minimum price for alcohol? What business is it of anyone's how much Joe Bloggs wants to sell his cat's piss lager at?
21 comments:
Quite happy to wait for this guy to go to trial,it'll happen,a greasy pole is hard to climb but easier to slide down,he will meet lots who he kicked and clambered over to get his loot,the same one's will be waiting for him on the way down.
Now that's news coverage which makes me happy even when it is only a delicious fantasy.
I wish I could agree with you, Mr HenryJ, but if Blair ever does face justice I will require medical treatment to reset my dislocated jaw.
It would also make all those MPs that voted for war, accomplices, would it not?
Seems like there's a few wars kicking off now. Tunisia seems fun.
Funny how the law can reinvent itself, tie itself in non-sequiteurs and squeeze out the maximum amount of retribution when it comes to a relatively small scale killer like Peter Sutcliffe and yet manage to ignore the real monsters, like Bush and Blair and Cheney and Rumsfeld, Straw and Howard, in fact, as MR says, the whole gang of them.
Seems implicit in recent events that we are divided into the prosecute-able and the immune, seems that no-one is going to take away their license to kill.
As for Tunisia, mr dtp, it's all down to high food and fuel prices, unemployment and a dictatorial govament that nobody voted for; fancy that.
How I long to hear those three little words - take him down.
To think we've to pay £25,000 for the man to re-attend the Iraq Inquiry next week. That's only to keep him safe from the public.
I suppose it is something, next week; he looked, after the last, feeble Chilcotting, rather like a man who had got it all done and dusted. Do w epay, separately, for Imelda, anyone know?
Mr. Ishmael, of course, transposes the judicial verdict in the appeal of the so-called Yorkshire Ripper into a fantasy scenario in which a politician is brought to justice for imposing a war which caused the death of many more than Peter Sutcliffe would have been able to do, had he lived to be hundred without being apprehended. This device allows us to consider the relative guilt of the two men, the traditional immunity from prosecution of Heads of State who warmonger (until they find themselves on the losing side e.g. Saddam) and the inherant contradictions in the appeal verdict. We are asked to consider: was Sutcliffe mentally disturbed? If so, is mental illness something that can be recovered from, like the flu? Or is it more like an untreatable and fatal physical illness? Which category does the desire to kill lots of women fall into? Has Sutcliffe recovered from his mental illness? If so, should he ever be released, or, on the off chance that he might suffer a relapse, should he be banged up in perpetuity? And where does retribution fit in? Should there be a desire for retribution against someone who was not in his right mind, who would not have killed had he been in his right mind? And deterrance - if he is released does it give the message - hey, potential serial killers out there, you can have your fun, enjoy your killing spree and still serve a determinate sentence. Surely, such a consideration would have no impact on a potential killer....most of them seem to off themselves anyway, don't they, much to the relief of society, which really, really doesn't want to grapple with these big questions.
One might by extension, Ms Agatha, say that anyone who sets out to kill someone is necessarily unhinged, and therefore deserving of mercy and treatment rather than punishment. Killing people would therefore become mad rather than bad.
We have - for better or worse - adopted a system of justice which allots moral desert based not just on one's acts but also the consequences of same. I think though that we have gone too far and we seem to have decided to criminalise ordinary error and to allot punishment based on consequence rather than intent. An example. Which of us has not driven a car tired after a hard week's work? The nodding head, the spaced out brain, not even consciously negligent. Most of us got away with it but one poor lad crashes his van onto a railway line. A bunch of people get killed and he is in the jug for ten years. Was he any more wicked than us when we did exactly the same thing but with no consequences? it is a difficult question.
But let us consider a proper wickedness. Any reckless act will do - speeding very fast, drink-driving, dropping extinguishers off roofs... So let us recklessly take a shotgun, close our eyes and fire it randomly out of the window. You hit nobody; I kill a newborn baby; Mr Ishmael kills Tony Blair. Who was the most wicked? What should our punishments be?
Beautiful, Mr Ishmael. The photo worked even better when I imagined Blair was being unknowningly shepherded towards a bolt gun.
It is a beguiling fantasy: Blair in a grey uniform with arrows on it, dragging a ball and chain but even if it did happen he`d think he was Nelson Mandela.
Mr. Mongoose says: "We have .... adopted a system of justice which allots moral desert based not just on one's acts but also the consequences of same."
It is even more complicated than that, as, other than with absolute offences, for which intent matters not a jot, as in the case of administrative regulations and civil penalties created by statute, such as crimes against the traffic or highway code, there must be the actus reus (the prohibited act) and the mens rea (the intent)in order for a crime to be committed. After that is established, the individual characteristics of the crime and also of the offender are factors in determining the nature of the penalty. We have a system of individualised justice. There are then principles of sentencing, amongst which are punishment, individual deterrence, deterrence of others, proportionality and rehabilitation of the offender. However, if the offender is mentally ill in consequence of which he was unable to form the mens rea of the offence, then the prohibited act (serial murder, for example) has been committed, but the offender, because he was not capable of forming the intent, does not fall to be sentenced, but is committed instead to a secure institution for treatment of his illness. The two things should not be mixed up, which is precisely what the appellant judges did in the Sutcliffe appeal.
The examples given by Mr. Mongoose are interesting, in that the consequences have far exceeded the intent, and the offender is punished for the consequences of what actually happened as opposed to what he intended to happen. This scenario is covered by what is known as the "eggshell skull ruling", which amounts to this: Mr Ishmael, for example, hits Mr Blair in the face, intending at worst to break his nose. It turns out that Mr Blair has a skull as thin as an eggshell and dies in consequence of a blow which should have delivered a minor injury only.
Because Mr Ishmael intended to commit an unlawful act, although not an actual death; he is considered to have sufficient mens rea to be guilty of having killed the bloke.
It is all terrifically interesting and complicated, which is why those clever fellows in London, in the High Courts are paid so much to sort this stuff out and keep the working classes in their place.
It is a blanket immunity, though, which covers Blair, outside any precedents or common law imperatives to prosecution and the Chilcotting has became virtually the sole pursuit which he suffers - the shredding of the expenses receipts, the bungs from Ecclestone and Mittal, these are enough to see most behind bars The examples of mr mongoose and ms agatha are elegantly framed, irrelevant, though, with regards to the crimes of GlobaCorp and its agents who have, in any event, before leaving office created new laws exemptng them from prosecution - Berlusconi the pimp and Dubya the Chimp to name but two of our great democrats, that Blair is both serial domestic larcenist and international conspirator is a measure of the man's criminality.
"We have a system of individualised justice."
I think that we should but that increasingly we do not. We move towards consequences and away from mens rea. Error becomes crime; consequence becomes the measure for the penalty. Sutcliffe is obviously (was!) as mad as a snake. Sane people do not creep about at night hitting random ladies-of-the-night on their heads with a hammer. I make no argument about letting him out. A man as bonkers as that is probably best kept away from folk. But we keep him locked up so that the readers of the Redtops do not accuse the government - of whatever ilk - of going soft. Likewise countless others.
That Blair is immune from his just punishment is a different matter altogether. Likewise that there are now so many strict liability offences punishable by fixed penalties. The criminalising of error. Taxation of administrative incompetence. Horrible cant and vileness.
I sense that your knowledge and expertise in these matters trumps my own, Ms Agatha, but, hey, that is always the way one learns stuff.
And on reflection, before I hit the Send Button, I think that this is a fundamental undermining. I am fined as a criminal because I send in my tax return late. Some random electric device sends me a fixed penalty something and I am a criminal again. What was it? Too much garbage in the bin or unsorted garbage? I forget. But that undermines what the law is for. The law is the contract we all have with each other for when things go wrong. We should take to law in extremis when everything else has failed. It's not that way now. Just as Blair is immune, I at the other end am ever more prey for the rules of the state he and his like created. We lose respect for the law and then for each other and then we are lost.
You should read Lenny Bruce on the Law, mr mongoose. He'll be in the library, How To Talk Dirty And Influence People.
Got it on a shelf here somewhere, Mr I. I'll read it again.
And, Mr. Mongoose, it will only get worse. As the different data bases on the law abiding population join up and search programmes compile all the info that people have given for various purposes, increasingly the executive, administrative and judicial arms of the state overlap and combine to control, criminalise and leach off the essentially law abiding population. And why? Because they are more biddable. They have a stake in society. Something to lose. Because, essentially, they can.
Yep. Fines for poor administration of trivial shit. The cunts started off by making it an offence to fail to SORN your vehicle every fucking year.
You shouldn't have to SORN it at all. If you get caught driving your untaxed vehicle on the road then okay - pay the fine. But if your vehicle is untaxed but isn't on the fucking road then what does it matter? Even if it's rotting in a fucking shed - what does it matter? Really? And what is achieved by making me register a rotting vehicle as SORN every year?
What's that all about?
The cunts are changing the law again to further punish you for poor admin but I can't recall the detail just now.
It's the equivalent of fining you for not declaring that you have no TV every year and so will not be requiring a TV licence.
Heads we get some cash. Tails we get some cash.
Bastards.
Yes, I've mentioned it before, the assumption of our criminality -it's worse than just the money, it's the constantly having to prove one's innocence.
Although I do see that the DVLA now have "wheelclamping partners". Fucking parasite bastards. Every damn thing in the country is corrupted, measured and fixed penaltyed up to its arse. I despair of it all. Fucking minimum price for alcohol? What business is it of anyone's how much Joe Bloggs wants to sell his cat's piss lager at?
Post a Comment