Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Sabina Nessa - May she RIP
Comments
-
More than random.......he drove all the way from Eastbourne to attack someone. That would take you approx 90 mins - what was he thinking on the way ? Why Kidbroke ?KBslittlesis said:So random.
Complete nutter.
So very sad 😞
May he rot in hell.
So sad & just so unnecessary. This is where the death penalty is the right sentence.4 -
He was intent on a kill.golfaddick said:
More than random.......he drove all the way from Eastbourne to attack someone. That would take you approx 90 mins - what was he thinking on the way ? Why Kidbroke ?KBslittlesis said:So random.
Complete nutter.
So very sad 😞
May he rot in hell.
So sad & just so unnecessary. This is where the death penalty is the right sentence.
The random was the victim.
Thats what makes it so awful.Can we learn from this? Should he have been identified before?0 -
The article suggests he'd previously been identified as a threat to women and that he wasn't a British citizen. The lesson's obvious.KBslittlesis said:
He was intent on a kill.golfaddick said:
More than random.......he drove all the way from Eastbourne to attack someone. That would take you approx 90 mins - what was he thinking on the way ? Why Kidbroke ?KBslittlesis said:So random.
Complete nutter.
So very sad 😞
May he rot in hell.
So sad & just so unnecessary. This is where the death penalty is the right sentence.
The random was the victim.
Thats what makes it so awful.Can we learn from this? Should he have been identified before?2 -
Totally agree but sadly will never happen, no jury will vote for this, unless it is taken out of their hands. People who go out with the intent to kill and do so, should have the same happen to them.golfaddick said:
More than random.......he drove all the way from Eastbourne to attack someone. That would take you approx 90 mins - what was he thinking on the way ? Why Kidbroke ?KBslittlesis said:So random.
Complete nutter.
So very sad 😞
May he rot in hell.
So sad & just so unnecessary. This is where the death penalty is the right sentence.0 -
Like alot of people I thought that it would come out at some point that this bloke was known to this poor lady in some way. The thought that it was totally random added to the fact that the bloke drove all that way to do it is just crazy.0
-
Glad they have caught the person responsible. I hope he rots in jail doing very hard time for a very long time. I am not a believer in the death penalty as I don't think it would stop someone mentally unhinged doing this anyway.7
-
I don't believe the death penalty is a deterrent and you also have to take into account miscarriages of justice.
4 -
Totally agree with this.Athletico Charlton said:Glad they have caught the person responsible. I hope he rots in jail doing very hard time for a very long time. I am not a believer in the death penalty as I don't think it would stop someone mentally unhinged doing this anyway.0 -
See if you can find that classic Question Time clip with Ian Hislop and Priti Patel. Ms Patel was in favour of the death penalty and Hislop read out a list of 6 people wrongly convicted of murder. Patel said well, of course they could appeal, to which Hislop replied "but they'd be dead"!hoof_it_up_to_benty said:I don't believe the death penalty is a deterrent and you also have to take into account miscarriages of justice.
Edit: here it is: https://www.indy100.com/politics/priti-patel-ian-hislop-football-racism-video-b188373010 -
Evans in the 10 Rillington Place murders confessed without any “help” from Old Bill. Pretty open and shut case? Hanged then it was found out he didn’t do it.Lincsaddick said:
true, but in potential capital cases the burden of proof should be very high .. DNA has been a game changer for years and has reduced the chances of a miscarriage of justice .. still, nothing is foolproof and there is the added situation where jurors might be reluctant to find a guilty verdict in potential capital cases. Anyway we digress from the subject of poor Ms Nessa R I Phoof_it_up_to_benty said:
My main issue with the death penalty is mistakes are made in convictions.Lincsaddick said:
I have a lot of sympathy for this argument though loss of real independence will be a blow until or if he becomes institutionalised. Also, heinous murders such as the one discussed should always carry a whole life term with no chance of ever being released. Recently the murderer of two little girls in the midlands, Colin Pitchfork was released on licence after 33 years inside. A long time to be sure, but how must the relations of his victims feel now that this scumbag is walking around with a decent life expectancy ahead of him. If he'd killed my child, I would want him dead, no ifs and no butseaststandmike said:
The trouble is SHG he wont, he will access to a fully stocked library, TV, play stations, snooker table, the opportunity to study etc, etc.ShootersHillGuru said:
I fully understand the sentiment behind your words. Personally I’d much prefer he spend years upon boring years in a grotty cell looking over his shoulder every minute of the day . RIPLincsaddick said:Earlier this week near Derby, a mother, her two children and a friend of the children who was on a sleep over were murdered. A man has been arrested. IF he is found guilty, may he rot in prison for the rest of his life and not be allowed out on 'licence' at some time in the future. There again, some, like me, may well think that the death penalty is appropriate for cowardly child killings such as this. The UK will never re-introduce capital punishment though.
Add in the three square meals a day and he will live a better life than a lot of our elderly folk or those on a low income.0 - Sponsored links:
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61021379.amp
Life with a 36 year MINIMUM sentence which means he'll be 72 before he's even eligible for parole.2 -
Evil bastard.
An old girlfriend of mine lives a couple of hundred yards from where her body was found, she lives alone and was very shaken.
The whole area had a very strange atmosphere for quite a while and very few women were seen out and about, shopping, walking to the bus stops, out jogging or walking their dogs etc.1 -
Beyond evil.
Hope he rots & never tastes freedom again.
RIP Sabina 😔🙏🏻♥️4 -
About time the courts woke up and dished out some proper sentences.Henry Irving said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61021379.amp
Life with a 36 year MINIMUM sentence which means he'll be 72 before he's even eligible for parole.1 -
I'm on the fence tbh re capital punishment however I'm not sure this argument stands up today with DNA. There are cases where we know for certain that these people are guilty. Can they ever be safe to return to society ? Do they actually deserve too ? Is it worth the cost of keeping them in prison ? As I said I'm undecided but as long as there is adequate DNA and not based on evidence that could be wrong I see little danger in miscarriages of justiceAddicksAddict said:
Evans in the 10 Rillington Place murders confessed without any “help” from Old Bill. Pretty open and shut case? Hanged then it was found out he didn’t do it.Lincsaddick said:
true, but in potential capital cases the burden of proof should be very high .. DNA has been a game changer for years and has reduced the chances of a miscarriage of justice .. still, nothing is foolproof and there is the added situation where jurors might be reluctant to find a guilty verdict in potential capital cases. Anyway we digress from the subject of poor Ms Nessa R I Phoof_it_up_to_benty said:
My main issue with the death penalty is mistakes are made in convictions.Lincsaddick said:
I have a lot of sympathy for this argument though loss of real independence will be a blow until or if he becomes institutionalised. Also, heinous murders such as the one discussed should always carry a whole life term with no chance of ever being released. Recently the murderer of two little girls in the midlands, Colin Pitchfork was released on licence after 33 years inside. A long time to be sure, but how must the relations of his victims feel now that this scumbag is walking around with a decent life expectancy ahead of him. If he'd killed my child, I would want him dead, no ifs and no butseaststandmike said:
The trouble is SHG he wont, he will access to a fully stocked library, TV, play stations, snooker table, the opportunity to study etc, etc.ShootersHillGuru said:
I fully understand the sentiment behind your words. Personally I’d much prefer he spend years upon boring years in a grotty cell looking over his shoulder every minute of the day . RIPLincsaddick said:Earlier this week near Derby, a mother, her two children and a friend of the children who was on a sleep over were murdered. A man has been arrested. IF he is found guilty, may he rot in prison for the rest of his life and not be allowed out on 'licence' at some time in the future. There again, some, like me, may well think that the death penalty is appropriate for cowardly child killings such as this. The UK will never re-introduce capital punishment though.
Add in the three square meals a day and he will live a better life than a lot of our elderly folk or those on a low income.0 -
I am not convinced that DNA is the answer.
Years ago there was a a series on the television called ‘Law and Order’ by GF Newman where a corrupt police officer took hair from a person’s comb and stuck them in a balaclava.
DNA whilst good is not foolproof.
If you execute somebody, and it turns out they’re innocent, you can’t bring them back to life.1 -
seth plum said:I am not convinced that DNA is the answer.
Years ago there was a a series on the television called ‘Law and Order’ by GF Newman where a corrupt police officer took hair from a person’s comb and stuck them in a balaclava.
DNA whilst good is not foolproof.
If you execute somebody, and it turns out they’re innocent, you can’t bring them back to life.
Seth my point was where it is unequivocal. A hair in a hat can be planted ofcourse. Bodily fluids etc at crime scenes less so0 -
This case deserves the death penalty. Unfortunately no jury, if the choice was theirs would vote for it sadly.
Scum that go out with tbe intent to kill and succeed should face those consequences.
Perhaps any case that receives a whole life sentence, should automatically receive the death penalty.
Unfortunately there are too many wooly haired mob that have more thought for the criminal than they do the victim, so would never go through if the public had a say. Only one way to find out.
Special praise to the police for rounding up the culprit quickly, a force often vilified by the all knowing on this forum.3 -
Well said mate. Sounds like cameras were all over the place, even catching him throwing the murder weapon into the river in Kent.Chippycafc said:This case deserves the death penalty. Unfortunately no jury, if the choice was theirs would vote for it sadly.
Scum that go out with tbe intent to kill and succeed should face those consequences.
Perhaps any case that receives a whole life sentence, should automatically receive the death penalty.
Unfortunately there are too many wooly haired mob that have more thought for the criminal than they do the victim, so would never go through if the public had a say. Only one way to find out.
Special praise to the police for rounding up the culprit quickly, a force often vilified by the all knowing on this forum.
In such cases where there is no doubt whatsoever, hang the bastard !3 -
Hi mate...seems not enough from our friends who want to be at the crime scene before making judgement....btw between us we know who they are.queensland_addick said:
Well said mate. Sounds like cameras were all over the place, even catching him throwing the murder weapon into the river in Kent.Chippycafc said:This case deserves the death penalty. Unfortunately no jury, if the choice was theirs would vote for it sadly.
Scum that go out with tbe intent to kill and succeed should face those consequences.
Perhaps any case that receives a whole life sentence, should automatically receive the death penalty.
Unfortunately there are too many wooly haired mob that have more thought for the criminal than they do the victim, so would never go through if the public had a say. Only one way to find out.
Special praise to the police for rounding up the culprit quickly, a force often vilified by the all knowing on this forum.
In such cases where there is no doubt whatsoever, hang the bastard !1 - Sponsored links:
-
One of the things the media rarely states is the type of sentencing.Chippycafc said:
About time the courts woke up and dished out some proper sentences.Henry Irving said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61021379.amp
Life with a 36 year MINIMUM sentence which means he'll be 72 before he's even eligible for parole.
For example, they nearly always state someone as having been sentenced to (let’s say), 10 years imprisonment but actually there are normally several different charges and these length of terms can be given to serve concurrently or consecutively.
They may have 5 charges of 2 years for each one to be served concurrently.
Sounds good and a better story to imply they are going to serve 10 years when in reality they will only be inside for 2 years, with a third off for good behaviour, that’s only 16 months!
A far cry from the 10 years implied by the media.
Another example is when they sentence gang members.
”Gang members sentenced to 100 years.” Sounds like hefty sentences by the judge but the media are playing games with numbers yet again!
Once again there may be several different sentences and the sentences are to run concurrently not consecutively …...they ‘conveniently’ forget to mention that.🤨
1 -
That's not true.SoundAsa£ said:
One of the things the media rarely states is the type of sentencing.Chippycafc said:
About time the courts woke up and dished out some proper sentences.Henry Irving said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61021379.amp
Life with a 36 year MINIMUM sentence which means he'll be 72 before he's even eligible for parole.
For example, they nearly always state someone as having been sentenced to (let’s say), 10 years imprisonment but actually there are normally several different charges and these length of terms can be given to serve concurrently or consecutively.
They may have 5 charges of 2 years for each one to be served concurrently.
Sounds good and a better story to imply they are going to serve 10 years when in reality they will only be inside for 2 years, with a third off for good behaviour, that’s only 16 months!
A far cry from the 10 years implied by the media.
Another example is when they sentence gang members.
”Gang members sentenced to 100 years.” Sounds like hefty sentences by the judge but the media are playing games with numbers yet again!
Once again there may be several different sentences and the sentences are to run concurrently not consecutively …...they ‘conveniently’ forget to mention that.🤨
You just need to read more than the headline1 -
DNA is evidence?AndyG said:
I'm on the fence tbh re capital punishment however I'm not sure this argument stands up today with DNA. There are cases where we know for certain that these people are guilty. Can they ever be safe to return to society ? Do they actually deserve too ? Is it worth the cost of keeping them in prison ? As I said I'm undecided but as long as there is adequate DNA and not based on evidence that could be wrong I see little danger in miscarriages of justiceAddicksAddict said:
Evans in the 10 Rillington Place murders confessed without any “help” from Old Bill. Pretty open and shut case? Hanged then it was found out he didn’t do it.Lincsaddick said:
true, but in potential capital cases the burden of proof should be very high .. DNA has been a game changer for years and has reduced the chances of a miscarriage of justice .. still, nothing is foolproof and there is the added situation where jurors might be reluctant to find a guilty verdict in potential capital cases. Anyway we digress from the subject of poor Ms Nessa R I Phoof_it_up_to_benty said:
My main issue with the death penalty is mistakes are made in convictions.Lincsaddick said:
I have a lot of sympathy for this argument though loss of real independence will be a blow until or if he becomes institutionalised. Also, heinous murders such as the one discussed should always carry a whole life term with no chance of ever being released. Recently the murderer of two little girls in the midlands, Colin Pitchfork was released on licence after 33 years inside. A long time to be sure, but how must the relations of his victims feel now that this scumbag is walking around with a decent life expectancy ahead of him. If he'd killed my child, I would want him dead, no ifs and no butseaststandmike said:
The trouble is SHG he wont, he will access to a fully stocked library, TV, play stations, snooker table, the opportunity to study etc, etc.ShootersHillGuru said:
I fully understand the sentiment behind your words. Personally I’d much prefer he spend years upon boring years in a grotty cell looking over his shoulder every minute of the day . RIPLincsaddick said:Earlier this week near Derby, a mother, her two children and a friend of the children who was on a sleep over were murdered. A man has been arrested. IF he is found guilty, may he rot in prison for the rest of his life and not be allowed out on 'licence' at some time in the future. There again, some, like me, may well think that the death penalty is appropriate for cowardly child killings such as this. The UK will never re-introduce capital punishment though.
Add in the three square meals a day and he will live a better life than a lot of our elderly folk or those on a low income.0 -
Ben……this has been going on for years!Henry Irving said:
That's not true.SoundAsa£ said:
One of the things the media rarely states is the type of sentencing.Chippycafc said:
About time the courts woke up and dished out some proper sentences.Henry Irving said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61021379.amp
Life with a 36 year MINIMUM sentence which means he'll be 72 before he's even eligible for parole.
For example, they nearly always state someone as having been sentenced to (let’s say), 10 years imprisonment but actually there are normally several different charges and these length of terms can be given to serve concurrently or consecutively.
They may have 5 charges of 2 years for each one to be served concurrently.
Sounds good and a better story to imply they are going to serve 10 years when in reality they will only be inside for 2 years, with a third off for good behaviour, that’s only 16 months!
A far cry from the 10 years implied by the media.
Another example is when they sentence gang members.
”Gang members sentenced to 100 years.” Sounds like hefty sentences by the judge but the media are playing games with numbers yet again!
Once again there may be several different sentences and the sentences are to run concurrently not consecutively …...they ‘conveniently’ forget to mention that.🤨
You just need to read more than the headline1 -
A magistrate once told me all sentences of 1 year or less, the prisoner is released half way through.SoundAsa£ said:
Ben……this has been going on for years!Henry Irving said:
That's not true.SoundAsa£ said:
One of the things the media rarely states is the type of sentencing.Chippycafc said:
About time the courts woke up and dished out some proper sentences.Henry Irving said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61021379.amp
Life with a 36 year MINIMUM sentence which means he'll be 72 before he's even eligible for parole.
For example, they nearly always state someone as having been sentenced to (let’s say), 10 years imprisonment but actually there are normally several different charges and these length of terms can be given to serve concurrently or consecutively.
They may have 5 charges of 2 years for each one to be served concurrently.
Sounds good and a better story to imply they are going to serve 10 years when in reality they will only be inside for 2 years, with a third off for good behaviour, that’s only 16 months!
A far cry from the 10 years implied by the media.
Another example is when they sentence gang members.
”Gang members sentenced to 100 years.” Sounds like hefty sentences by the judge but the media are playing games with numbers yet again!
Once again there may be several different sentences and the sentences are to run concurrently not consecutively …...they ‘conveniently’ forget to mention that.🤨
You just need to read more than the headline0 -
Another example Chippy.Chippycafc said:
A magistrate once told me all sentences of 1 year or less, the prisoner is released half way through.SoundAsa£ said:
Ben……this has been going on for years!Henry Irving said:
That's not true.SoundAsa£ said:
One of the things the media rarely states is the type of sentencing.Chippycafc said:
About time the courts woke up and dished out some proper sentences.Henry Irving said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61021379.amp
Life with a 36 year MINIMUM sentence which means he'll be 72 before he's even eligible for parole.
For example, they nearly always state someone as having been sentenced to (let’s say), 10 years imprisonment but actually there are normally several different charges and these length of terms can be given to serve concurrently or consecutively.
They may have 5 charges of 2 years for each one to be served concurrently.
Sounds good and a better story to imply they are going to serve 10 years when in reality they will only be inside for 2 years, with a third off for good behaviour, that’s only 16 months!
A far cry from the 10 years implied by the media.
Another example is when they sentence gang members.
”Gang members sentenced to 100 years.” Sounds like hefty sentences by the judge but the media are playing games with numbers yet again!
Once again there may be several different sentences and the sentences are to run concurrently not consecutively …...they ‘conveniently’ forget to mention that.🤨
You just need to read more than the headline1 -
What? You not reading beyond the headline?SoundAsa£ said:
Ben……this has been going on for years!Henry Irving said:
That's not true.SoundAsa£ said:
One of the things the media rarely states is the type of sentencing.Chippycafc said:
About time the courts woke up and dished out some proper sentences.Henry Irving said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61021379.amp
Life with a 36 year MINIMUM sentence which means he'll be 72 before he's even eligible for parole.
For example, they nearly always state someone as having been sentenced to (let’s say), 10 years imprisonment but actually there are normally several different charges and these length of terms can be given to serve concurrently or consecutively.
They may have 5 charges of 2 years for each one to be served concurrently.
Sounds good and a better story to imply they are going to serve 10 years when in reality they will only be inside for 2 years, with a third off for good behaviour, that’s only 16 months!
A far cry from the 10 years implied by the media.
Another example is when they sentence gang members.
”Gang members sentenced to 100 years.” Sounds like hefty sentences by the judge but the media are playing games with numbers yet again!
Once again there may be several different sentences and the sentences are to run concurrently not consecutively …...they ‘conveniently’ forget to mention that.🤨
You just need to read more than the headline
When the say "gang gets 100 years" in the headline that means if you add the 15 years later for one guy, the 12 for another etc etc they total 100.
Nothing to do with concurrent setances.
If you read the actual sentencing report it's made clear.0 -
I do think some sentences are beyond lenient but that is down to law and guidance set down there in. Mostly minor sentences and repeat offenders know that for say driving whilst disqualified and over the limit, their ban will be lengthened and they may go inside for a few months. But that doesn't stop them doing it all again.0
-
Again not true and nothing to do with concurrent sentences.Chippycafc said:
A magistrate once told me all sentences of 1 year or less, the prisoner is released half way through.SoundAsa£ said:
Ben……this has been going on for years!Henry Irving said:
That's not true.SoundAsa£ said:
One of the things the media rarely states is the type of sentencing.Chippycafc said:
About time the courts woke up and dished out some proper sentences.Henry Irving said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61021379.amp
Life with a 36 year MINIMUM sentence which means he'll be 72 before he's even eligible for parole.
For example, they nearly always state someone as having been sentenced to (let’s say), 10 years imprisonment but actually there are normally several different charges and these length of terms can be given to serve concurrently or consecutively.
They may have 5 charges of 2 years for each one to be served concurrently.
Sounds good and a better story to imply they are going to serve 10 years when in reality they will only be inside for 2 years, with a third off for good behaviour, that’s only 16 months!
A far cry from the 10 years implied by the media.
Another example is when they sentence gang members.
”Gang members sentenced to 100 years.” Sounds like hefty sentences by the judge but the media are playing games with numbers yet again!
Once again there may be several different sentences and the sentences are to run concurrently not consecutively …...they ‘conveniently’ forget to mention that.🤨
You just need to read more than the headline
They become ELIGIBLE for release on licence half-way through their sentence if they have behaved themselves.
That applies in most cases, rightly or wrongly. It's an incentive for them to behave.
It's why, as in this case, judge sets a MINIMUM period before the prisoners is ELIGIBLE for release on licence.
1 -
It’s because I DO read beyond the headlines that I know what I am talking about. Don’t tell me you have never noticed? 🧐Henry Irving said:
What? You not reading beyond the headline?SoundAsa£ said:
Ben……this has been going on for years!Henry Irving said:
That's not true.SoundAsa£ said:
One of the things the media rarely states is the type of sentencing.Chippycafc said:
About time the courts woke up and dished out some proper sentences.Henry Irving said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61021379.amp
Life with a 36 year MINIMUM sentence which means he'll be 72 before he's even eligible for parole.
For example, they nearly always state someone as having been sentenced to (let’s say), 10 years imprisonment but actually there are normally several different charges and these length of terms can be given to serve concurrently or consecutively.
They may have 5 charges of 2 years for each one to be served concurrently.
Sounds good and a better story to imply they are going to serve 10 years when in reality they will only be inside for 2 years, with a third off for good behaviour, that’s only 16 months!
A far cry from the 10 years implied by the media.
Another example is when they sentence gang members.
”Gang members sentenced to 100 years.” Sounds like hefty sentences by the judge but the media are playing games with numbers yet again!
Once again there may be several different sentences and the sentences are to run concurrently not consecutively …...they ‘conveniently’ forget to mention that.🤨
You just need to read more than the headline
When the say "gang gets 100 years" in the headline that means if you add the 15 years later for one guy, the 12 for another etc etc they total 100.
Nothing to do with concurrent setances.
If you read the actual sentencing report it's made clear.
Of course the gang example I made was the addition (I’m not that stupid)of all the sentences, that’s exactly what I was driving at, but again the exact sentences are more often than not referred to, a hundred years sounds far more impressive and the media has always played along with it.
Even the broadsheets play the game most of the time.0
