www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1299042...attacked-prison.html

No matter how evil and wretched Ian Huntley is, there is a basic principle at stake here. As a modern, civilised European nation, we do not have the death penalty, and we have long since forbidden the state to carry out cruel and unusual punishments, such as torture or mutilation. If the prison service has been negligent in it's duty to care for for its inmates, even the most despised, then effectively it has allowed other prisoners to be proxies in carrying out such illegal and barbaric state punishments.

What was more disturbing than the tabloid reaction was Jack Straw's comments when home secretary, promising to fight any compensation claim.

There's a famous saying concerning the mark of a civilised society being how it treats its worst members.

Also, when tabloids carry 'anonymous quotes' from prison insiders saying that so and so nonce will be a marked man inside, the editors should be charged with incitement to assault or even murder.

And just to make clear, I wouldn't shed a single tear for whatever happens to Huntely, the issue here is state sponsored vigilante (in)justice and where it might lead us to.

Srawman is a scumbag who is directly responsible for the deaths of children in Iraq.

Tabloids are advocating vigilant justice. They need to be dragged into court. They are no different to those who orchestrate riots.

Well said Blackit,my sentiments entirely.

If indeed there is negligence by the prison services,then they should be made to pay for it.The system is at fault,and you can't blame somebody who had his throat cut from trying to get the guilty penalized.

However under the current law could the parents of the murdered girl sue him for compensation if he wins any money? Would seem fair all round.

If Huntley wants to play the tabloid game he should give each family £11,000 to match the DERISORY compensation those poor parents were given by the state.

Not only that - remember that the POLICEMAN who was their family liason officer was also a PAEDOPHILE - which rubbed salt in the wounds of the Parents who must have realised right then that the STATE does not protect children at all. Huntley was ALLOWED to roam free - probably because it suited the authorities - they knew he was VERY dangerous. When you consider maybe 1 in 3 police are Paedophiles ( compared to 1 in 100 teachers or priests ) you start to realise the true depth of this problem.

Every day we see more Police being arrested for Child Sex offences. Many at the very serious end of the scale and often they work in Child Protection Units. These CPUs are a Perverts Paradise as far as I can see - and should be closed down. If the Police worked on a true beat system then the local policeman/women should deal with these cases so they never have to do many of them.

It cant be right that day after day a Policeman will be viewing Child Porn and taking statements about sex. It is bound to corrupt them because sex is invasive like that. Add to that the low IQs of most Police and you have a recipe for disaster. I cant believe we carry on treating our kids this badly - SOHAM is not over - the problem has not been solved.

Paedo cases are invariably historic these days - because they need no evidence and they can be used in CUSTODY disputes as witch-hunts and in order to shut up celebs etc.

BR - I tend to treat many of your comments with a raised eyebrow and some I slightly agree with, but 1 in 3 Police being paedophiles? Pull the other one mate!

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-10825238

Bit more commonsense reaction from the beeb.

Some quotes.

'Norman Brennan, founder of the Victims of Crime Trust, said that if Huntley won his claim, his victims' families should sue him.'

This makes sense,but at least it would allow the negligent prison authorities to be shown up in court.

Here is Juliet Lyon, of the Prison Reform Trust

"It's a difficult place now for the Ministry of Justice because they have to hold that line. If a court sentences someone to custody they're not sentencing them to be attacked.

"We have to expect that our prison service is going to be a safe, secure place. What happens thereafter if that breaks down, if the staff aren't able to hold that line, it's then up to the individual to pursue any means that they're able to."

This sums up my attitude,the prison authorities were aware of the danger,but were incompetent in their actions.

Blackit wrote:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1299042...attacked-prison.html

No matter how evil and wretched Ian Huntley is, there is a basic principle at stake here. As a modern, civilised European nation, we do not have the death penalty, and we have long since forbidden the state to carry out cruel and unusual punishments, such as torture or mutilation. If the prison service has been negligent in it's duty to care for for its inmates, even the most despised, then effectively it has allowed other prisoners to be proxies in carrying out such illegal and barbaric state punishments.

What was more disturbing than the tabloid reaction was Jack Straw's comments when home secretary, promising to fight any compensation claim.

There's a famous saying concerning the mark of a civilised society being how it treats its worst members.

Also, when tabloids carry 'anonymous quotes' from prison insiders saying that so and so nonce will be a marked man inside, the editors should be charged with incitement to assault or even murder.

And just to make clear, I wouldn't shed a single tear for whatever happens to Huntely, the issue here is state sponsored vigilante (in)justice and where it might lead us to.

You win the ITK award for post of the week.

veritas wrote:
Srawman is a scumbag who is directly responsible for the deaths of children in Iraq.

You are the joint winner of post of the week (although I think you mean Strawman - ie Slimy Jack)

I know this is pushing BR's ground a little, but there is an excellent essay on the internet out there that seems to suggest a great deal about the lack of guilt of Ian Huntley as regards the murder of those two little girls.

There was undeniably little (if any) evidence to him killing them and a great deal circumstantial. If I find the essay I'll post the link, but I believe the author died not long afterwards (another conspiracy in there no doubt!).

As for Huntley's other 'crimes', well he wasn't actually prosecuted for any of them was he, it was treated as more less gossip by Humberside Police?

Don't get me wrong, I am not supporting Huntley at all, however there is a lot about this case that strikes me as odd right from the very beginning. When Huntley was first arrested, I have always had this nagging doubt in my head. He just seemed to be the 'perfect' person for the Police to nab for a case that they simply had to solve.

In fact, I did ring up the Operations Room when the investigation was going on because I had seen two girls with a strange looking bloke walking through a part of Cambridgeshire a few hours after they were reported as missing.

steveimp wrote:
As for Huntley's other 'crimes', well he wasn't actually prosecuted for any of them was he, it was treated as more less gossip by Humberside Police?

Don't get me wrong, I am not supporting Huntley at all, however there is a lot about this case that strikes me as odd right from the very beginning. When Huntley was first arrested, I have always had this nagging doubt in my head. He just seemed to be the 'perfect' person for the Police to nab for a case that they simply had to solve.

In fact, I did ring up the Operations Room when the investigation was going on because I had seen two girls with a strange looking bloke walking through a part of Cambridgeshire a few hours after they were reported as missing.

that is fascinating.
I doubt we would ever know what went on in an operation like that and I have sympathy for police involved.
How anyone can harm a child is quite beyond me and the thought of discovering a murdered child's body is quite beyond my comprehension. We should make allowance at times for the police..they do have extremely difficult jobs.

But I agree..even the most wretched of criminals deserves protection. It is what makes the difference between us and the uncivilised.

I am humbled In The Know at the wonderful award. My preferred prize is a crate of Bollinger..no need to deliver , I will collect. Tell me the time and place.

This is another site about the Huntley/Carr conspiracy - www.justjustice.org/

If you look for Joe Vialls on Google you may find his original work; he suggests the real perpetrators of the murders were associated with USAF Lakenheath, which is where the bodies of the two girls were found.

Out of all the crimes that Huntley was accused of, he was only ever charged and convicted of burglary, which should have been enough to have seen him not get that job to start with at the school.

Thanks BR, you write:

"When you consider maybe 1 in 3 police are Paedophiles..."

This is quite true, and a very illuminating contribution to our understanding of what is possible.

The proposition following the "maybe" is capable of being imagined as true. Prefacing it with "maybe" therefore forms a true statement.

Included in a further list of true statements for consideration are:

1. Maybe there is a god
2. Maybe 8 + 5 = 13.25 under suitable atmospheric and altitude conditions
3. Maybe I'm the King of France
4. Maybe hamburgers are ten feet wide
5. Maybe there is no god
6. Maybe nothing exists independently of representation
7. Maybe granite is soft and pliable
8. Maybe no police are paedophiles

Best Wishes,
Jim

your reply steveimp relates to the Sarah's Law thread.

Would not the better way to handle the safe guarding of children would be for anyone..absolutely anyone who works with children be made to get a license from a formal body where the checks are done.

That way there would be no embarassment for those who didn't pass..surely much better than the public being able to have someone looked up and they may have commited some small act...peeing in public..arrested and convicted..hence Sex Offender status but the message goes out they are a kiddy fidler.