Human Rights

[JohnnyFartPants]

Yep, it is a particularly braindead thread starter.

 

Many, many people have been killed and labelled based on nothing more than suspicion, rumour, or because they were set up. We claim to be civilised, but the fools of this country (and others, to be fair) prove that man is but a hairs breadth away from beast, and worse, at times. Taking the high ground is only ever reasonable if you are atop the highest hill, and most people, most nations, are not.

 

Bin Laden should be treated as any other prisoner, were he caught here. I don't believe anyone has the authority to take a life unpermitted, or abuse anyone else, and anyone that does so is wrong, as my morals go. If people who fall into that category should be caught, they should be punished as our morality permits, not in some cheap tit-for-tat pettiness. There is never a reasonable price to pay for death, etc, so why bother to ask? It's more of a punishment to stay alive for one thing, and our country believes in rights allowing people to maintain some semblance of dignity. We should not seek to replace the criminals we incarcerate.

 

Also - why the **** should I restrict my life to pander for idiots? An example - the so called anarchists cookbook. Chock full of genuinely dangerous information if used by anyone. Does having it make you a criminal? Most of it's science. It's not like child porn, where there is clearly a victim from point 1. But if the authorities that are, I guess, the 'enemies' of human rights, had their way, anyone who's ever seen it would go to jail 'just in case'. It's like the gun laws in the US. There's no reason why perfectly reasonable people shouldn't own guns. The problem is, some people aren't, but it's ever so difficult to legislate about that. While I'm essentially anti-guns, it still would seem harsh on a people who have grown used to having firearms to remove them due to the occasionally tragic actions of a nutter fringe. If I wanted to, I could go and kill someone. Right now. You can NEVER legislate about that kind of thing. Locking anyone up who so much as touches the Quran, which is what some people seem to want, is senseless. If someone is truly guilty of something, then a better and more reasonable way to conduct matters is to PROVE it, as out law has always been based on. Habias Corpus etc. If there is no evidence, there is no crime, and even if that means sometimes things go wrong, I'd rather live in a fair society.

 

I like Robsk, but I do find this to be far too wishy washy love fest gayer talk.

 

Nutter killers should be put down, not even humanely. Gas them, set wild animals on them, burn them alive, I really do not care. Sorry if this doesn't fit in with the modern thoughts of todays watered down Britain, but it's what I believe in.

[scott_saints]

If they catch Bin Laden, they should send him to Robsk's house for the rest of his life, where Robert will bring him breakfast in bed everyday and makes him cups of tea and coffee when our Binny requires it.

[Scudamore]

I like Robsk, but I do find this to be far too wishy washy love fest gayer talk.

 

Nutter killers should be put down, not even humanely. Gas them, set wild animals on them, burn them alive, I really do not care. Sorry if this doesn't fit in with the modern thoughts of todays watered down Britain, but it's what I believe in.

 

First the bacon sandwich, now this...it's like you're a voice for a generation. And the generation is Scu...

[JohnnyFartPants]

First the bacon sandwich, now this...it's like you're a voice for a generation. And the generation is Scu...

 

I try to think about what my country needs rather than what people thinks makes them come across as decent. Obviously the ideal bacon sandwich and scum life being wiped out is high on the list.

[bungle]

I like Robsk, but I do find this to be far too wishy washy love fest gayer talk.

 

Nutter killers should be put down, not even humanely. Gas them, set wild animals on them, burn them alive, I really do not care. Sorry if this doesn't fit in with the modern thoughts of todays watered down Britain, but it's what I believe in.

 

I think this is point that was raised by Robsk earlier. Britain is not "watered down" - we now have MORE laws, MORE erosion of civil liberties, MORE control by the state over our lives than this country has ever had - other than perhaps the erea of Robert Banks Jenkinson (Lord Liverpool). Current times are the exact opposite of what made Britain "Great".

[Scudamore]

I think until you've looked into the eyes of someone coming at you with the intentions of snubbing your life out then it's perhaps difficult to understand why perhaps some people aren't entitled to life. Ie. psychopaths.

[JohnnyFartPants]

I think this is point that was raised by Robsk earlier. Britain is not "watered down" - we now have MORE laws, MORE erosion of civil liberties, MORE control by the state over our lives than this country has ever had - other than perhaps the erea of Robert Banks Jenkinson (Lord Liverpool). Current times are the exact opposite of what made Britain "Great".

 

You have a point to be honest. When was the last time you truly thought Britain was Great or thought we were being great? The recent Olympics, though good to see didn't do it for me. Sadly, and I am no lover of war, for me it was the Falklands Conflict. The daily updates on British men being tested for the first time in a generation and doing so in such different conditions to which they were used to. The video images of them romping over hills and mountains and then the flag waving at all the ships when they came back.

 

I struggle to think of anything that was Greater than that in my life time to be honest.

[Robsk II]

It's down to us, JFP, as a people and as a nation. Not down to immigrants or succesive governments, or at least, the populace needs to shoulder the blame.

 

I respect your views, and you're entitled to them. I just genuinely think killing anyone is wrong, even if, from pretty much any direction on a moral compass, some deserve death a whole lot more than others. Thing is, there are millions of dead who have deserved to live, and vice versa. Nothing brings people back, and I am just not comfortable with killing for punisment. I really don't see we have the authority, and I also honestly believe in punishing people in civilised ways.

[Scudamore]

Wouldn't it be nice if God actually worked and gave bad people the shoeing they deserve?

[JohnnyFartPants]

It's down to us, JFP, as a people and as a nation. Not down to immigrants or succesive governments, or at least, the populace needs to shoulder the blame.

 

I respect your views, and you're entitled to them. I just genuinely think killing anyone is wrong, even if, from pretty much any direction on a moral compass, some deserve death a whole lot more than others. Thing is, there are millions of dead who have deserved to live, and vice versa. Nothing brings people back, and I am just not comfortable with killing for punisment. I really don't see we have the authority, and I also honestly believe in punishing people in civilised ways.

 

Yeah, whatever!!

 

Okay, I mentioned this earlier so will aim it directly at you, matey.

 

If it is right and respectful to allow a person that is ill the right to die in dignity, and people who commit such atrocious crimes as mass murder and torture are then "ill" then can we as a nation offer them the right to die in dignity rather than lock them up for the rest of their lives, only allowed to glimpse life through iron bars?

 

Surely that is the kinder thing to do as a thoughtful and civilised community?

[bridge too far]

Yeah, whatever!!

 

Okay, I mentioned this earlier so will aim it directly at you, matey.

 

If it is right and respectful to allow a person that is ill the right to die in dignity, and people who commit such atrocious crimes as mass murder and torture are then "ill" then can we as a nation offer them the right to die in dignity rather than lock them up for the rest of their lives, only allowed to glimpse life through iron bars?

 

Surely that is the kinder thing to do as a thoughtful and civilised community?

 

I'm with Robsk here. Some people who commit atrocious crimes are ill and should received treatment for their mental illness in the same way as any human being should receive treatment for any physical illness.

 

However, there are people who commit crimes knowing that they're doing wrong. Because killing is evil, no-one should ever kill anyone be it on purpose or as a punishment. Society can't say killing is wrong and then carry out killing. That's sheer hypocrisy.

 

But a deterrent IS needed. I would find the thought of being locked up for the rest of my life far, far more likely to deter me from committing such a crime than the thought of 'being put out of my misery'. That's the easy way out IMO.

[JohnnyFartPants]

I'm with Robsk here. Some people who commit atrocious crimes are ill and should received treatment for their mental illness in the same way as any human being should receive treatment for any physical illness.

 

However, there are people who commit crimes knowing that they're doing wrong. Because killing is evil, no-one should ever kill anyone be it on purpose or as a punishment. Society can't say killing is wrong and then carry out killing. That's sheer hypocrisy.

 

But a deterrent IS needed. I would find the thought of being locked up for the rest of my life far, far more likely to deter me from committing such a crime than the thought of 'being put out of my misery'. That's the easy way out IMO.

 

Maybe so, but I think the odds are favour of the latter ensuring you never were bad again. It's just common sense to kill baddies.

[Guest Dark Sotonic Mills]

Sorry John, I agree with BTF here. Punishment is meant to cause grief and anguish to the prisoner so being locked up without a chance of release is acceptable whereas giving them the option of a quick release is not.

 

FWIW, I'm all in favour of bringing back hard labour for prisoners rather than allowing them to sit in their cells playing draughts or listening to the radio.

[Hatch]

Sorry John, I agree with BTF here. Punishment is meant to cause grief and anguish to the prisoner so being locked up without a chance of release is acceptable whereas giving them the option of a quick release is not.

 

 

How many baddies would there be if the death penalty was there as a deterent.

They might decide to carry on with their usual job as a Traffic Warden (or whatever) instead of going out and slicing up old grannies.

[JohnnyFartPants]

Sorry John, I agree with BTF here. Punishment is meant to cause grief and anguish to the prisoner so being locked up without a chance of release is acceptable whereas giving them the option of a quick release is not.

 

FWIW, I'm all in favour of bringing back hard labour for prisoners rather than allowing them to sit in their cells playing draughts or listening to the radio.

 

But if being a mentally deranged killer is a lifelong illness and you also support the rights of people becoming ill through paralysis, cancer etc then do they not also deserve the same way out from their own inner torment? If you deny these sick people this then you are as guilty of inflicting unnecessary suffering on them as they were on their victims, no?

[JohnnyFartPants]

How many baddies would there be if the death penalty was there as a deterent.

They might decide to carry on with their usual job as a Traffic Warden (or whatever) instead of going out and slicing up old grannies.

 

I am liking this word being used to describe serial killers and rapists. It makes me chuckle somewhat.

[Guest Dark Sotonic Mills]

But if being a mentally deranged killer is a lifelong illness and you also support the rights of people becoming ill through paralysis, cancer etc then do they not also deserve the same way out from their own inner torment? If you deny these sick people this then you are as guilty of inflicting unnecessary suffering on them as they were on their victims, no?

 

There is a dichotomy in your arguments though. If we are talking about genuinely sick people then they should receive treatment for their illness as well as the public being protected from them. Hence why we have places like Broadmoor.

If however they are genuinely bad then the years of incarceration isn't unnecessary but hopefully there will be suffering by way of mental anguish.

[bridge too far]

But if being a mentally deranged killer is a lifelong illness and you also support the rights of people becoming ill through paralysis, cancer etc then do they not also deserve the same way out from their own inner torment? If you deny these sick people this then you are as guilty of inflicting unnecessary suffering on them as they were on their victims, no?

 

But we don't put to death people with terminal illnesses (yet), do we. And physical terminal illnesses eventually directly cause death anyway whereas mental illnesses don't directly, although they can by association (e.g. suicide).

 

There is always the risk that people might be executed for a crime they didn't commit. How would you feel if you or yours were set up and accused of a capital crime that you hadn't committed but were sentenced to death? There have been loads of cases in the past of innocent people executed.

 

And you don't answer the most salient point: if killing is a crime how can we kill for the sake of retribution? Isn't that hypocritical?

[JohnnyFartPants]

There is a dichotomy in your arguments though. If we are talking about genuinely sick people then they should receive treatment for their illness as well as the public being protected from them. Hence why we have places like Broadmoor.

If however they are genuinely bad then the years of incarceration isn't unnecessary but hopefully there will be suffering by way of mental anguish.

 

So you are saying that if they are mentally ill, we have places to cater to their needs, but if they are just very bad people, then we have places to drive them mad so that maybe one day we can put them in the places that cater for the mentally ill? And you say we mustn't be barbaric monsters by ending their days quickly?

 

It also sounds as if you are catering more for the victims by throwing them in prison than you are for the patient who has a nasty illness which drives him to do these things.

[JohnnyFartPants]

But we don't put to death people with terminal illnesses (yet), do we. And physical terminal illnesses eventually directly cause death anyway whereas mental illnesses don't directly, although they can by association (e.g. suicide).

 

There is always the risk that people might be executed for a crime they didn't commit. How would you feel if you or yours were set up and accused of a capital crime that you hadn't committed but were sentenced to death? There have been loads of cases in the past of innocent people executed.

 

And you don't answer the most salient point: if killing is a crime how can we kill for the sake of retribution? Isn't that hypocritical?

 

I didn't quite mean it that way. I am asking you to consider that what makes a person kill repeatedly is an illness, in the same way that terminal disease is also an illness. There seems to be a growing understanding among civilisation to "allow" (not sentence) a person with an illness to die in dignity. I am asking why you feel that a mass murderer should not also be afforded this way out from his turmoil.

[Guest Dark Sotonic Mills]

So you are saying that if they are mentally ill, we have places to cater to their needs, but if they are just very bad people, then we have places to drive them mad so that maybe one day we can put them in the places that cater for the mentally ill? And you say we mustn't be barbaric monsters by ending their days quickly?

 

It also sounds as if you are catering more for the victims by throwing them in prison than you are for the patient who has a nasty illness which drives him to do these things.

 

Not drive them mad, but make sure that the consider their crimes every waking moment. Anguish is not insanity.

 

And yes, I consider the victims' rights are as important as the offenders'. Putting people in prison for life is not supposed to be an easy option.

[JohnnyFartPants]

Not drive them mad, but make sure that the consider their crimes every waking moment. Anguish is not insanity.

 

And yes, I consider the victims' rights are as important as the offenders'. Putting people in prison for life is not supposed to be an easy option.

 

If someone kills a loved one of mine I will not give a flying **** if that person, incarcerated for the next 40 years or until death, is now feeling ready to recognise that they were naughty.

 

The victim had his rights taken away from him, he's dead. So if you are more than willing to match these rights for the offender, then I fully endorse your u-turn. Also, it may not be meant to be a soft option, but we know it is.

[bungle]

The victim had his rights taken away from him, he's dead. So if you are more than willing to match these rights for the offender, then I fully endorse your u-turn. Also, it may not be meant to be a soft option, but we know it is.

 

I would call the death penalty the soft option. The offender will never have to think about their crime, have any chance to understand what pain they have caused victim (or victim's family) and never have to suffer for their wrong.

[JohnnyFartPants]

I would call the death penalty the soft option. The offender will never have to think about their crime, have any chance to understand what pain they have caused victim (or victim's family) and never have to suffer for their wrong.

 

Okay, then non stop torture before death after one year?

[bungle]

Okay, then non stop torture before death after one year?

 

What is anyone or anything going to gain from torture - the most inhumane of practices? And you are still letting them have the easy option of death.

 

FWIW, prisons and sentencing need massive reforms in this country. At the moment prison does nothing, it is not an effective deterrent, and it is also provides us with too many repeat offenders. It is no conincidence that countries with lower levels of crime in Europe are those who offer more community based sentencing. Jail would then be more the most serious of criminals.

[Scudamore]

Not drive them mad, but make sure that the consider their crimes every waking moment. Anguish is not insanity.

 

Hows about castration for paedophiles? They'd be able to sit in jail sans testicles and think about what they've done...whilst slowly growing breasts...

[trousers]

[JohnnyFartPants]

Hows about castration for paedophiles? They'd be able to sit in jail sans testicles and think about what they've done...whilst slowly growing breasts...

 

Excellent idea!!

[Saint Martini]

What is anyone or anything going to gain from torture - the most inhumane of practices? And you are still letting them have the easy option of death.

 

FWIW, prisons and sentencing need massive reforms in this country. At the moment prison does nothing, it is not an effective deterrent, and it is also provides us with too many repeat offenders. It is no conincidence that countries with lower levels of crime in Europe are those who offer more community based sentencing. Jail would then be more the most serious of criminals.

 

This is why the UK has been slapped on the fingers by the EU for having high sentences and too little focus on rehabilitation. Unless you offer a life after a prison sentence what is someone going to do? I guess it depends if you want to punish the criminals as hard as possible or if you want to make sure they don't do it again when they get out.

[INFLUENCED.COM]

It seems clear that Paedophiles can not be rehabilitated so their illness is terminal, however, unlike most terminal illness' the end for these people does not come in months or a couple of years so is not the final stage, therefore I believe they have a mental illness that requires them to remain in a controlled environment for the rest of their lives, not in the community on a list that can still allow them to infect others, if a law is passed that allows those with an incurable illness to have assisted deaths then the authorities should assist with the death of all peodophiles within months.

[JohnnyFartPants]

It seems clear that Paedophiles can not be rehabilitated so their illness is terminal, however, unlike most terminal illness' the end for these people does not come in months or a couple of years so is not the final stage, therefore I believe they have a mental illness that requires them to remain in a controlled environment for the rest of their lives, not in the community on a list that can still allow them to infect others, if a law is passed that allows those with an incurable illness to have assisted deaths then the authorities should assist with the death of all peodophiles within months.

 

I totally agree.

[bridge too far]

Paedophilia is not a terminal illness.

 

Terminal illness is a medical term to describe an active and malignant disease that cannot be cured or adequately treated and that is reasonably expected to result in the death of the patient. This term is more commonly used for progressive diseases such as cancer or advanced heart disease than for trauma.

 

Paedophilia is defined as a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children. It does not, in itself, cause the death of the paedophile.

 

No significant curative treatment for paedophilia has been found yet. There are, however, certain therapies that can reduce the incidence of paedophilic behaviors that result in child sexual abuse.

 

Some recent research has suggested that paedophilia may be caused by faulty brain wiring.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7116506.stm

 

Please understand that I am not defending or condoning paedophilia. I'm just pointing out to you that you cannot apply your 'test' of 'putting someone down' because they have a terminal illness to a paedophile.

[JohnnyFartPants]

Paedophilia is not a terminal illness.

 

Terminal illness is a medical term to describe an active and malignant disease that cannot be cured or adequately treated and that is reasonably expected to result in the death of the patient. This term is more commonly used for progressive diseases such as cancer or advanced heart disease than for trauma.

 

Paedophilia is defined as a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children. It does not, in itself, cause the death of the paedophile.

 

No significant curative treatment for paedophilia has been found yet. There are, however, certain therapies that can reduce the incidence of paedophilic behaviors that result in child sexual abuse.

 

Some recent research has suggested that paedophilia may be caused by faulty brain wiring.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7116506.stm

 

 

 

Thanks, but what's your point?

[bridge too far]

Thanks, but what's your point?

 

You're the one making the point, not me. You were the one saying that paedophiles have a terminal illness and therefore should be put down.

 

I'm demonstrating the flaw in your argument, that's all. This may be clearer if my edited version is now visible.

[JohnnyFartPants]

You're the one making the point, not me. You were the one saying that paedophiles have a terminal illness and therefore should be put down.

 

I'm demonstrating the flaw in your argument, that's all. This may be clearer if my edited version is now visible.

 

Not sure I have mentioned any laws concerning kiddy fiddlers. I have been talking purely about murderers. Of the murderers, I have also said that only the really nasty ones should be put down.

 

I did suggest that nut job serial killers are ill and so should be given the chance to take their own life in much the same way as a person with cancer etc. Although our society does not endorse that, we are beginning to turn a blind eye to it. You did pick up on the fact that cancer resulting in ultimate death was different from having a bonkers in the nut illness that wouldn't mean death to the patient/prisoner, but very recently a man flew to Switzerland to end his life as he was paralysed from the chest down. He could have gone on to live for years but chose not to. There is no difference between the two. They are both ill and do not like the life that has now been offered them because of the illness they have.

[bridge too far]

Not sure I have mentioned any laws concerning kiddy fiddlers. I have been talking purely about murderers. Of the murderers, I have also said that only the really nasty ones should be put down.

 

I did suggest that nut job serial killers are ill and so should be given the chance to take their own life in much the same way as a person with cancer etc. Although our society does not endorse that, we are beginning to turn a blind eye to it. You did pick up on the fact that cancer resulting in ultimate death was different from having a bonkers in the nut illness that wouldn't mean death to the patient/prisoner, but very recently a man flew to Switzerland to end his life as he was paralysed from the chest down. He could have gone on to live for years but chose not to. There is no difference between the two. They are both ill and do not like the life that has now been offered them because of the illness they have.

 

Sorry JFP - it was Influenced.com that said:

 

INFLUENCED.COM

It seems clear that Paedophiles can not be rehabilitated so their illness is terminal

 

 

 

However - you did say that you agreed

 

I'm in favour of euthanasia (my mum has a terminal illness and is suffering big time but hanging in there. All she wants is to die). And I believe it is the right of an individual in a civilised society to choose to end his or her life if it is intolerable, such as that young rugby player.

 

But you could argue, could you not, that a murderer or a paedophile should not be allowed a civilised choice as they haven't behaved in a civilised manner.

 

But what about this:

 

"The sudden and uncontrollable paedophilia exhibited by a 40-year-old man was caused by an egg-sized brain tumour, his doctors have told a scientific conference. And once the tumour had been removed, his sex-obsession disappeared."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2943-brain-tumour-causes-uncontrollable-paedophilia.html

Edited 22 October, 2008 by bridge too far

[INFLUENCED.COM]

This may be clearer if my edited version is now visible.

illness, disease, cannot be cured or adequately treated, Paedophilia a sexual preference for prepubescent children, No significant curative treatment for paedophilia has been found yet, child sexual abuse, faulty brain.

 

I have edited your version and it remains very clear to me that they need to be executed

[bridge too far]

I have edited your version and it remains very clear to me that they need to be executed

 

Then let's just hope that no close male relative of yours (because most paedophiles are men) have faulty brain wiring or a brain tumour (see my most recent post).

 

No doubt you'll be first in the queue to pull the switch?

[JohnnyFartPants]

Sorry JFP - it was Influenced.com that said:

 

INFLUENCED.COM

It seems clear that Paedophiles can not be rehabilitated so their illness is terminal

 

 

 

However - you did say that you agreed

 

I'm in favour of euthanasia (my mum has a terminal illness and is suffering big time but hanging in there. All she wants is to die). And I believe it is the right of an individual in a civilised society to choose to end his or her life if it is intolerable, such as that young rugby player.

 

But you could argue, could you not, that a murderer or a paedophile should not be allowed a civilised choice as they haven't behaved in a civilised manner.

 

But what about this:

 

"The sudden and uncontrollable paedophilia exhibited by a 40-year-old man was caused by an egg-sized brain tumour, his doctors have told a scientific conference. And once the tumour had been removed, his sex-obsession disappeared."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2943-brain-tumour-causes-uncontrollable-paedophilia.html

 

You couldn't rephrase this could you!!

Edited 22 October, 2008 by JohnnyFartPants

[Hatch]

 

No doubt you'll be first in the queue to pull the switch?

 

 

If there was such a queue , I reckon I could do the job.

 

Wouldn't keep me awake at night either.

[bridge too far]

You couldn't rephrase this could you!!

 

Sorry - done.

[bridge too far]

If there was such a queue , I reckon I could do the job.

 

Wouldn't keep me awake at night either.

 

There were two parts to the post, Hatch and the second part was dependent on the first. Go read it again

[JohnnyFartPants]

Sorry - done.

 

Ta muchly!!

[Scudamore]

Then let's just hope that no close male relative of yours (because most paedophiles are men) have faulty brain wiring or a brain tumour (see my most recent post).

 

No doubt you'll be first in the queue to pull the switch?

 

I would find it damned near impossible to stand by them if they were found guilty of it...

[Hatch]

There were two parts to the post, Hatch and the second part was dependent on the first. Go read it again

 

I read it, I was just making the jump to another matter..

 

Whether one could be an executioner or not.

 

Anyway. One of my relatives does have faulty Brain wiring. Have you ever met DurleyFos?

[JohnnyFartPants]

I read it, I was just making the jump to another matter..

 

Whether one could be an executioner or not.

 

Anyway. One of my relatives does have faulty Brain wiring. Have you ever met DurleyFos?

 

I have and can concur.

[INFLUENCED.COM]

Then let's just hope that no close male relative of yours (because most paedophiles are men) have faulty brain wiring or a brain tumour (see my most recent post).

 

No doubt you'll be first in the queue to pull the switch?

 

A very rare example you have found BTF, however, if this occurred in early 2000 then, since their findings, all those on sex offender registers should have an MRI and if no tumour etc.. is found then execute them and Yes, I will pull the switch, trigger, inject, tie the noose personally if it is a member of my family or a close friend.

[bridge too far]

A very rare example you have found BTF, however, if this occurred in early 2000 then, since their findings, all those on sex offender registers should have an MRI and if no tumour etc.. is found then execute them and Yes, I will pull the switch, trigger, inject, tie the noose personally if it is a member of my family or a close friend.

 

And demote yourself to the level of the criminal?

 

I thought you were more intelligent than that TBH.

[bungle]

I read it, I was just making the jump to another matter..

 

Whether one could be an executioner or not.

 

Anyway. One of my relatives does have faulty Brain wiring. Have you ever met DurleyFos?

 

I have and can concur.

 

I apparantly met him at Burnley away one year, but was only informed of this afterward.

 

This post is irrelevant to the thread, but I feel is an interesting point.

[INFLUENCED.COM]

And demote yourself to the level of the criminal?

 

I would suggest I will have promoted myself to a saviour of many other lives by that one act.