Jim Stanley sent us the following letter:
To whom it may concern:
Maybe following the latest outrage London it is time to step back and think rationally about what is happening. First, this latest crime has, by some quirk of the English language been given a certain justification by calling it a “terrorist” incident, part of an on going war of a religious basis. It seems that a person, any person who happens to be going about their lawful business is somehow a target, an enemy, regardless of their race, colour, creed or religion. In other words these people go out to kill and maim, without any thought of who may be injured or worse.
In many respects they are similar to the upper classes who used to go out on animal hunts, where the aim was to kill as many wild animals as possible, and some kudos gained for the ferocity and size of their prey. These days we accept that this was wrong, for may reasons we see it as an affront to civilised society, but when a “terrorist” does the same, because of what we see as some warped sense of justification we treat it, not as the crime of murder, but a death on the battlefield! Let us stop using “terror” when speaking of these crimes and call them what they are, murder, the most heinous of crimes.
Time was, not so long ago, we had capital punishment for taking the life of another, with premeditated killing being the ultimate, and various lesser punishment for a death caused by “accident”, for example, a bar fight when a person dies when their head hits the floor, when “manslaughter” may be appropriate. However, the recent crime in London is murder, premeditated and callous. This was not murder to advance the perpetrator financially, to free themselves of a troublesome spouse, a police officer preventing another crime or whatever. No, this was a crime where the guilty party went out to kill, he did not care who, black, white, Muslim, Christian or Jew, male or female, child or adult, any living person would do so they could make their point whatever that was.
Maybe, and I know that I am putting myself in the line of fire here, but it has to asked, is it not time to bring back the ultimate sanction for the most heinous of crimes, that of premeditated murder. I believe that the death penalty has a place in our modern society, but only for certain levels of crime. The killer who leaves his home with the intent of killing, with the means to do the crime, with a target in mind, and then carries out the act, without a moments hesitation, seemingly without remorse, indeed in some cases exalting at the moment of death, surely such a person has forfeited the normal rights in society and as such should be permanently removed from that society for the good of that society, and the only way that society can be sure that they will be safe from that person is to remove them from the planet.
Jail is not the answer. Criminals do escape from prison, cases are reviewed, and release gained, early in the London Bridge killer’s case. Failure of the parole system let him go about his evil ways unfettered by the technical kit he was wearing, and the opinion that he was a reformed person, who keeping locked up served no purpose. Just ask the victims, rather the relatives, of those killed, if they believe that society was served by allowing dangerous people free to walk the streets. Obviously the conditions of his release had no bearing on what he planned to do, all he cared about was being free to commit his crime.
Society has changed since the hangman laid down his noose for the last time. The Kray Twins, possibly the most vicious and notorious of the London gangland bosses had scruples. Without doubt they were guilty of many killings. “Mad” Frankie Frazer, one of the most prolific of gangland killers was proud of his record. Why, one may ask? Like the Krays and others, he never killed a member of the public, or a serving police officer (I may be wrong there), he only ever killed those who broke the rules of “Crimeland”, criminals who were well aware of what would happen if you broke the rules. If a petty criminal mugged a pensioner in their “manor”, that person was punished, the victim compensated by the Krays, and in the eyes of the bosses, the wrong righted. The rule was very simple, you do not mess with the public where the Krays ruled. When one of their people went away, their family were looked after, their children fed and rent paid, and when they came out, they would be met, provided with a suit and money to get them by, presumably until they were able to resume their nefarious ways, of which, no doubt, the Krays took their “cut”.
But we are not talking about the internal punishment of organised crime, we are talking about a person who decided to go out and kill people. They did not care who, they did not kill to punish, or to make a political point, no they went out just to kill, safe in the knowledge that, even with a whole like tariff, they could be out in 16 years, providing they “showed remorse”, “changed their ways”, and kept out of trouble when in prison. As things stand, this man could be out of prison by as soon as about 2035/6, free once again to kill and maim without cause, except in his warped mind. He said, last time, that he had changed, but I doubt he will, so I believe that there is only one way that society can be sure that it is safe from him and those of like mind, who have killed in the past, and no doubt will kill again.
For a killer of his ilk, there can be only one punishment that is certain to protect our future society, our children and their children yet to be born, and, unfortunately that is capital punishment. Unpalatable as we may find it, sometimes, we must set aside our laudable morality and act to protect society, not for the next decade or two, but for all time by removing these killers from the face of the planet to a place where they cannot return and wreak havoc again, because, should they live, they will find a way to continue their insidious work, killing and maiming the truly innocent.
Respectfully, Jim Stanley
Why are most people caught up on the Islamic angle? As soon as you bring any sort of “justification” into the equation, you are providing,, to some, a valid excuse for their actions.My point is this, these people are first and foremost CRIMINALS. They kill without any thought, they just wish to kill for their own gratification. I am Agnostic, and frankly I do not care if they get their 72 virgins or whatever. I am far from convinced that all of the so called Terrorists have a death wish, surely their belt would be real as they could kill many more with a few pounds of Semtex than a knife when in a crowded place.In a modern Liberal basically Christian Society such as the UK, there is no place for any sort of justification for Murder of any person for any reason. To label these people as “Terrorist’s” only serves to give them them that justification for their acts that they seek. would we call Doctor Death a Terrorist, he was certainly responsible for many deaths, or Fred and Rose West, again vile people Terrorists, No we call them Criminals, for that is what they are. If a Muslim kills say 3 Christians, automatically he is a Terrorist, but for all we know, he may be driven by envy at the BMW they are driving, or the better housing they enjoy, the fact they are Christian is a secondary point. All Terrorists are Criminals, first and last. and should be treated as such before the Law,.Justice we are told is blind to Race, Colour, Creed or Religion. It is about time that Justice was served as I and many others believe it should.
The murder victims are dead, and are dead forever. There is no ‘time off for good behaviour’ or ‘early release’ for the victim. Perhaps if the perpetrator knew that they might face the rope there might not be so many murder victims.
The death penalty is no deterrent to Muslim terrorists. They wish to die while killing non-muslims so guaranteeing a place in paradise.
The latest wore a fake suicide belt because he knew he would be shot by the police the moment they saw it.
No, the religion/cult that advocates this behaviour must be banned along with it’s cult book that advocates these crimes.
Yes, they WANT to be killed so that they can enjoy the after-life with their 72 virgins.
Meanwhile, none of our spineless politicians seem the least concerned that, by 2050, they will have allowed this country to become an Islamic state.
Of course it must be banned but we must be prepared to deal with the war which follows and especially the enemy within which has welcomed them. The need is pressing given the differential breeding rates.
I do not think that any sort of “ban”of a book will make any difference! Handguns are “Banned” , but I understand that it is now easier to get a pistol than it was before the ban! While the Noose may not be a deterrent to certain people, at least, once dead, there is no chance of them ever being released,. If they are hung, burnt and dumped, they are not able to spread their evil doctrine..
JS
Surely Islamic countries apply the death penalty for murder so why can’t we? If the alternative is to deport them if we know their country of origin, then that would likely be stymied by the ‘uman rights Act. Imprisonment costs a fortune while a piece of rope only costs a few quid!
That guy did get the death sentence didn’t he. Our police marksmen are rather good. I believe they have to aim for the head because of the (sometimes faked) ‘suicide vest’. My first reaction was to bring back the death sentence. Only doubt on that is that I seem to remember cases when too late it was proved he/she was not guilty.
So – don’t know.
One thing I am sure of though – we have gone far too soft on such cases. He had been jailed for some terrorist activity and let out early. He had been ‘worked with’ by some rehabilitation group and wasn’t that group ‘meeting’ at Fishmongers Hall at the time? Fat lot of good that tag was.
All the money we wasted on that lump of you know what. There must be a better way.
A true, Common Law Court Trial by Jury has the authority of the people to try a case, determine guilty or not guilty, determine an appropriate penalty and Nullify bad law if said Jury decides that existing law is flawed. Perhaps we should put it to the test . . . again.
Hope not Hate.,,Unite against Fascism ==VOTE BREXIT.
Surely it is time we discussed ‘westphobia’ which is as prevelant as ‘islamaphobia’ and has caused so many deaths and injuries from ‘home grown’ terrorists/murderers who hate us and our country for their bigoted religious or political reasons. The effects of this are available on the National Secular Society website where minority groups campaign against sharing our values and culture while using the personal freedoms and advantages of a tolerant Western society, education and welfare state.
Why not make ‘westphobia’ as discriminatiing as other ‘phobias’ which the UN is trying to do? Our press is so quick to label ‘hate’ to those who stand up for the majority, rage against the ‘far right’ – but not the ‘veneer British’ who label us as ‘racist’ and plan to hurt us. They are freely on the internet /dark web in other languages so we do not hear their abuse. How many ‘terrorist incidents’ were luckily stopped this year by our police, and how many of the criminals are imprisoned for their hatred of us? Repatriation is the only cure to one of the 39 predominately muslim countires who share their views.
They say one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
We need a far stricter definition of terrorism; for me it would be the indiscriminate attempted killing or maiming of innocent parties in pursuit of political ends. That specifically excludes attacks on soldiers or police perceived as occupying forces.
One definition (wiktionary) is patently absurd: “The use of unlawful violence against people or property to achieve political objectives”.
Firstly, what is unlawful is not necessarily immoral; secondly, if my house or car gets damaged by Antifa anti-Brexiters, is that ipso facto “terrorism”, mega-pissed off though i’d be ? But TPTB want, in truly Orwellian style, to define resistance to global corporatism as far as possible as “terrorism”.
1984 is more relevant than ever.
To “pursuit of political ends” the “pursuit of alien religious ends” needs to be added. We all know what that alien religion is, whether the real reason or an excuse.
Fully agree with the proposal but the re-introdution of capital punishment is unlikely in peace time – too much of society is now far too liberal and the media would demonise and ostracise those who backed such a proposal. But if it were to be introduced it should be capital punishment for all murders. The murder of a little lonely granny on the back streets of Birmingham for a few bob should be ranked as seriously as murdering the Queen, Prime Minister a policeman or a MP.
Yes. What is even dafter is that the victims family are so forgiving that they want to put the public at risk of these maniacs.
The families are entitled to their views, but not to set public policy so as to endanger me and mine with their piety .
Are the victims families part of the taxpayer-funded handwringing rehab industry ?
Well said Jim, the threat from terrorists, particular those driven by Islam, requires a serious response. As you suggest that can only be the death penalty; it should be carried out soon after conviction and without drama. I would further suggest immediate cremation to avoid any formal funeral which might attract protestors or sympathisers, although such people might warrant investigation themselves.
Perhaps we should not expect anyone to act as executioner so automation of the actual process may be necessary at a randomly selected time. It should not be difficult to design and build such a facility.
I have advocated , for many a long day , that the only way to combat this murderous ambition and terrorism is LEX TALIONIS. Look it up.
Could be a bit messy though and some of those tasked with carrying out the sentence might not have the stomach for it. That’s why I suggest automation. Just imagine the Judge being made to give his verdict by pressing one of two buttons, no alternative accepted, the “guilty” button initiating the process with no further human involvement necessary.