Kate Beagley Murder

[Dustydog]

It beggars belief that this young lady's convicted murderer ,Karl Taylor, honestly expected the jury to believe that Kate stabbed herself 31 times to death!

I am glad he has to serve at least 30 years in prison although this does nothing to relieve the loss and pain suffered by Kate's parents family and friends.

Cheers

Alan

 

[Lord Braykewynde]

It does nothing to relieve my anger either alan, the thought of us having to keep him in jail through our taxes. He won't suffer because his human rights will be taken care of in jail. He should have no human rights at all because he denied a young girl hers. Hanging, guillotine, electric chair, injection, please themselves how they do it but just rid the earth of the scum and show others there is a deterrent and that is if you take someones life be prepared to pay for it with your own.

 

[JasonR_374341560]

In my day you often got a good sharp shock response if you did wrong. In recent years that's given way to not confrontational chatting about wrong doing.

Talking ones way out of trouble has taken over in the minds of trouble makers.

Some just think that all of us will believe anything they trot out!

 

[davedee]

How can a so-called defense lawyer live with himself/herself after trying to get someone like this off.

They go through the trial promoting the lies and excuses they have dreamt up between them and collect a big fat pay cheque at the end.

There should be penalties for lawyers who put forward a defense built on falsehoods.

Dave

 

[Parksy]

Its unfair to blame the counsel for the defence who can only advocate on the information supplied by the defendant. The defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty so counsel must make a case based on the presumption of innocence. This forms the basis of a fair trial and if this didn't happen there would be no justice for the family of victims because every case would be thrown out, if not by our courts then by the courts in Strasbourg.

There seems to have been a massive surge featuring violence towards women lately, with several high profile cases before the courts in a short space of time. With the advances in forensics made in the last few years it's high time that Capital punishment is reintroduced here.

 

[Lord Braykewynde]

Getting everyones DNA on a data base can't come fast enough for me. It will cut crime tremendously from petty pilfering, illegal immigrants and murders.

OK there will be howls of protests from the PC idiots about human rights but stuff them, scum only believe in human rights when it's their own neck on the line.

 

[Rubix.]

Bit contraversial, but why test products (makup, drugs etc) on animals (ie mammals, birds etc) and test them on these "animals"

As far as I am concerned, we live in a civilsed world, anyone who chooses not to live by these rules of society have forgone their civil liberties and should therefore be treated with contempt and we should be able to do what we want with them. We have to pay so much to keep them in prison when it would cost us nothing if they worked and stayed out of trouble and they would actaully pay into the system by paying their own tax etc. So if we could "use" them by testing .... I dunno the latest taser gun (first dibs goes to the victim, or their families !!)

Ok, I've finished with the soapbox, its free for the next user.

 

[Lord Braykewynde]

What an excellent idea of using them for testing products :O)

Another is to give them, free of charge of course to help the starving, to the cannibals of the East Indies. Their bones could then be ground down into bonemeal fertiliser and sold to local tribes people. It's all to do with recycling and for the first time in their lives, or death, they would be doing some good :O)

 

[JasonR_374341560]

Why are those who get life sentences or will never be let out not offered the choice of death?

Many try and kill themselves in Prisons, so why not give them the choice if some people can't face having death as a penalty.

Ian Huntley, Yorkshire Ripper and others might as well be left to make one choice that could do us all a favour.

 

[Lord Braykewynde]

"Ian Huntley, Yorkshire Ripper and others might as well be left to make one choice"

Yes, and they are segregated with extra protection, also on suicide watch which costs more in man power. If they want to commit suicide why stop them?

 

[JasonR_374341560]

A simple legal paper to sign, and then access to a lethal injection!

All those special needs and costs of keeping and protecting such people would be over come.

As I said, it could do us a favour and make them and a lot of others very happy probably.

If the Moors muderers had been given the option to finish there lives, how much time money and duress would have been saved if they had opted for that choice?

 

[Lord Braykewynde]

Ahhhhhhh but wait. OK we both agree it's the best way but I've just had a rethink.

What about their "human rights" .......... hehheh!

 

[Rodone]

Make them suffer what the victim did if possible....

 

[MargaretW.]

How can a so-called defense lawyer live with himself/herself after trying to get someone like this off.

They go through the trial promoting the lies and excuses they have dreamt up between them and collect a big fat pay cheque at the end.

There should be penalties for lawyers who put forward a defense built on falsehoods.

Dave

They do it for money! In most cases, however, either the solicitor or the Barrister instructed has a better command of the English language and can put across the points clearly. I know from experience working with them, that they have a bad time knowing full well that the client is as guilty as hell.

Margaret W.

 

[JasonR_374341560]

LB. If you give a lifer the free choice to end their life with a lethal injection, they have then made their own choice the same as if they hung themselves or cut their wrists in their cells.

Thats their "Human Right" is it not

 

[Dustydog]

What a hypocrasy all this human rights thing is.He savagely murdered young Kate. Thus I believe where murder is concerned in a case like this he should automatically forfeit and human rights.

I am sure I read somewhere last year that it costs the tax payer

 

[PAUL_374344644]

Give it 4 or 5 years, then a BBC 'Rough Justice' type programme, fronted by an idealistic, hand wringing, naive fool will miraculously present us all with 'startling new evidence', showing that he suffered racial abuse as a child, and that a new, vital witness can prove that he was at Bible class when the crime was comitted and the conviction is therefore unsafe. Far fetched? Let's wait & see.

 

[milliesdad]

it seems that the comments are pretty much universal on this topic and I'm guessing that everyone on here is of average intelligence (me included). There are some very valid arguments and ideas put forward which begs the question - if forum members can come up with solutions, why don't out HIGHLY intelligent elected representatives come up with better ideas.

Now bear with me while I put my theory to you all.

If you believe that the legal system in this country is geared towards giving justice to the ordinary law abiding citizen, then many questions are thrown up. For instance

Why if someone is convicted of murder and receives the mandatory "life" sentence, they could serve as little as 6 years?

Why are we releasing criminals early rather than building new prisons (or doubling them up in cells)?

Why does a burglar / robber /mugger have to commit and be convicted of 30-40 crimes before finally being locked up (for 6 months).

Why when the scum plead guilty do they need a solicitor or lawyer to give the mitigating circumstances (feeding a drugs habit / abused as a child / never eaten sprouts etc)?

Any many more questions too numerous to list.

Now if you believe (as I do) that the legal system is geared towards (or even has the sole purpose of) making solicitors and lawyers extremely wealthy then I believe these questions are answered.

After all a criminal is of no value to a lawyer unless he is able to commit more crimes. He /she cannot do this if they are locked up or are 6 feet under. Then when they are locked up they need to be looked after. Comfy cells, TVs, gyms, phones, drugs, conjugal visits and, of course, legal representation any time you want it should your human rights be violated. We can't have prison being a deterrent and putting off said criminals from lining the legal pockets still further, can we?

But take the law into your own hands and expect the full force of the law to come down on you. They have nothing to lose by locking up the normally law abiding citizen he won't make them money. And others must be deterred from injuring the precious cash cows.

Tp take this a stage further. I read somewhere that 70% of our MPs are from the legal profession. I'll bet that doesn't get mentioned in the register of members interests. What more vested interest could a lawyer have than being able to make the laws? So what chance of the situation ever changing?

We read of hospital closures, school closures, post office closures cuts to expenditure in all areas but i for one have never heard of a firm of solicitors closing due to lack of work or 100 judges being made redundant or heaven forbid, the legal aid budget being cut.

I wonder how different the country would be if we had 70% of MPs say doctors and nurses?

I hope this doesn't read too much like a rant.

Am i just a cynic - or a realist?

 

[Lord Braykewynde]

I agree with you whole heartedly milliesdad with the exception of one valid point that you made.

" After all a criminal is of no value to a lawyer unless he is able to commit more crimes. He /she cannot do this if they are locked up or are 6 feet under".

There are millions to be made by our lawyers, even when locked up. Ask Ms Blair and all the other lawyers who specialise in "human rights".

This Human Rights Bill has to be the worse law passed by ANY parliament since Magna Carta. Human rights should be linked with communism, it looks good in theory but totally crap in practice.

One charge under the law that has niggled me for years is manslaughter, where a person can take anothers life by stabbing them but get this lesser charge because it wasn't premeditated.

If someone goes out armed with guns, knives etc. and kills someone on the spur of the moment they should be charged with murder and not manslaughter as is often the case.

Bring in DNA screening for all and then we will be able to hang them with confidence.

 

[Parksy]

As I said earlier, it's unfair to blame the legal profession for society's failings. QCs and solicitors can only interpret the law as it stands and parliament makes the laws of the land.The blame lies squarely with politicians which have been elected by us, you and me. We get the society that we deserve so when the next general election arrives (roll on the day!) It's up to all of us to fight voter apathy and show those in parliament who have forgotten those that they were elected to serve that we will no longer put up with the contemptuous treatment that they show toward us.

Of course I should add, criminals commit crimes so we should demand from our elected representatives real punishment for wrongdoers.

 

[Chaps]

Agree with lots of what's been written here.

Life should mean life - murderer's victims have had their lives cut short and their families suffer forever.

No time off for good behaviour - for goodness sake, they're in prison, they should blooming behave!

If the scumbags want to kill themselves, let them. Give them the option of the death penalty.

Make them do hard labour in prison - for no pay. Why should they earn anything when we're paying to keep them? Any work done should be considered payment for board and lodging.

Don't care if prisons are over-crowded - they shouldn't have committed crimes in the first place.

Take DNA samples from the whole population - sure this would reduce crime as the police stand more chance of catching the guilty. If you're a law abiding citizen, you've got nothing to worry about.

Rant over!!!!

 

[milliesdad]

Parksy wrote

"As I said earlier, it's unfair to blame the legal profession for society's failings. QCs and solicitors can only interpret the law as it stands and parliament makes the laws of the land.The blame lies squarely with politicians which have been elected by us, you and me."

As i said in my post the politicians ARE lawyers. Are they making laws for the benefit of the general public, or for their spouses, friends and ultimately themselves in the legal profession?

I'll ask a few more questions.

Why do we have maximum sentences? Why are we telling the crooks what the worst that can happen to them is?

Why when a person is convicted by 12 good men and true their appeal (funded by the taxpayer as always) is heard by 3 judges?

Why can someone appeal against their sentence (not just the conviction)?

Again I say, if you believe that the law is for the legal people's benefit then all of the above are answered.

As for getting the society we deserve, i agree. We have a society where someone chastised for leaving their briefcase / handbag visible in a car? Shouldn't they be allowed to? It's not against the law! Shouldn't we be chopping the hands off the thieves who break in and steal them? But then of course they wouldn't do it again and it would probably be a deterrent to others so we can't have that.

Even today we have the example of the RAF guys in Peterboro' being told not to wear their uniforms out for fear of being abused. Always we punish the victim not the wrongdoer.

But what can we do about it? Our "democracy" allows us to choose between a bunch of lying lawyers from the red corner or exactly the same from the blue corner. And if another party comes in (UKIP) and looks like it might make inroads into the cosy little set up of the others the blues and the reds get together and amend the law on party funding to ensure they will never be able to afford to mount a serious challenge.

If we could abolish party politics and have independents in the commons then we would have true democracy. Each law could be debated properly and fairly and voted on, on it's merits (not on the orders of the party boss). Failing that give us a "non of the above" option on the ballot paper and if this got the most votes then no party would have an MP in that constituency. We'd probably only have 12 MPs in the commons! (though if you watch some of the debates you'd be forgiven for thinking that's all we have anyway.)

We could make a start by scrapping the maximum sentences and letting us elect our judges. I think then we would see sentences reflecting public opinion. If it didn't we the public could sack our judge.

Shouldn't think this will happen in my lifetime though. (

 

[Lord Braykewynde]

How can it be a true democratic process when we have party leaders telling their M.P.S how to vote and whips to keep them in line and to make sure that each individual follows their leaders orders.

This only happened over the referendum vote where Clegg ordered Liberals to abstain. Those who had the courage of their convictions and wished to follow what they had promised during their electioneering had to resign their posts. Those who had no post to resign from will be censured by their not so glorious leader for not following orders.

The whole thing stinks and like 50% of M.P.s it stinks of corruption.

 

[giovanni_5060838]

"How can it be a true democratic process" Well its not is it.

Under true democracy,all people views are considered and held by MPs. We do not have propertional representation,therefore we do not have a "true democratic process.....

 

[milliesdad]

I understand what you are saying Gio, however you couldn't have PR in a partyless system.

Even if we had PR with the current parties the individual MPs would still vote on each bill as they were instructed to by the party leader. In a partyless system the MP would be free to vote according to his own views on the merits of the debate or if he wished by canvassing opinion from his constituents beforehand.