What sort of person would you lock in an underground box for 40 odd years?

a reply to: nugget1

You're, right, I did. And I agree.
I just use 2 different words in situations like this. He killed people. People that do not deserve to live.

Murderers to me are the ones that actually kill innocents.

My own semantics, I guess.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Hannibal Lecter was based on Robert Maudsley (the guy mentioned in the opening post).......but Robert Maudsley didn't really eat anyone.

In all honesty, he saved many kids from a bad fate.
In all honesty, putting fear into paedos sounds lovely to me.
In all honesty, murdering them wasn't really murder.
Yes they should have gone through the right process, because you don't want a lynch mobs, but...
...but it never happened. They were free.

However now it's done, hat off. I am so happy for the youngsters that live their life without ever knowing that it could have been so much worse.

When paedos get treated better than someone who saved childre, you know who is on their side.

Should give the guy a medal for removing the trash from society.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Seem to remember something similar, where a guy in the joint got praised for strangling a pedo that decided to describe what he did to children. The guy stateside understood exactly what he was and said he was no hero but he had his limits and his cell mate crossed the line and refused to back off.

Its interesting at this point that this happens considering the big push against the sound of freedom movie, that highlights child trafficking and everything that goes with it. Not to mention prince andrew and epstein island questions, Biden administration closing down every program trump stood up to go after human trafficking.

All that said, that seems like cruel and unusual punishment to me, seems like if anyone had other factors at play this guy did, help at any number of points would changed the guys life potentially.

Sad.

Maybe Trump can get him out of that glass box and make him the Secretary of Defense.
I mean, why not?

a reply to: SprocketUK

although i can sympathize and can feel some empathy with this person. it comes down to two things. did he know right from wrong due to his treatment before killing the first one which put him in the position to kill the others, second he didn't kill any of them during the acts they committed, it was after the fact. not his place to be judge jury and executioner, or second guess them. he can feel about it all he wants, but he has no right to act on those feelings.

a reply to: SprocketUK

You know if I had to be in such a place; I'd prefer the alone in a box/cell than in with general pop... and maybe he does too? Otherwise: I don't think he'd have knocked so many other prisoners off... Have to be in general population for that; Most of them in there knowing it's close to life due to their age is life as a sentence or is going to cost them their life as a penalty just don't care after a few months and keep racking up whatever demerits the facility has in place as behavior goes cause anywhere other than the same two or three places you see everyday is something they see worth getting in trouble over.

He wouldn't have even been in there; If someone didn't show him that he became the exact kind of monster he despised and killed them for it... Instead of breaking down and saying I've become my abusers. Cause that was the chance that was the turning point... In not taking the high road he is where he belongs.

If we accept that justice should be blind, as must be the case in a civilised society, then it must be equal sanction for crimes. Vigilantism is no justice at all. If you want blood, move to Iran or Afghanistan.

This person sounds like he's very dangerous. One wonders why - given his history - he was imprisoned with people he would clearly kill, or attack. While I agree that there is a special place in hell for paedos and their ilk, there is a rule of law that must be followed. In the pile of crap crimes, I would add those who abuse the elderly, or mentally vulnerable. Where do you stop?

a reply to: SprocketUK

I don't think it is really a matter of the kind of person one would lock in solitary confinement for 40 years; rather, it's more a case that the person is/was dangerous to fellow prisoners, and the country has no death sentence, so it is the most convenient legal way of dealing with him. Costly for taxpayers, but no skin off any authority's back.

Sure, one could argue that he only killed people who deserved it, but who's to say he wouldn't kill others if he were ever freed. And like it or not, killing another prisoner, whatever that victim may have done previously, just gives a person more prison time.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: WorldxGonexMad

Thats what gets me as the crazy bit, he isnt out there killing ordinary people, he kills sexual predators...yet the government wants him locked away like this? Something is fishy here. Damned fishy.

There is nothing fishy about this man; he's a murderer. It's not okay to murder people. Y'all watching too much HBO. If you've convinced yourself it's okay to go on killing sprees than you should be locked in a box too.

It's not about what his victims did, it's about what HE did. This is not an apology for the victims bad deeds, but two wrongs don't make a right, and you damn sure can't have cold blooded killers just running around executing people they think maybe could might potentially suspect to have done a bad thing.... Have y'all watched Dexter? Even he eventually killed an innocent person. The show was awesome, but Dexter wasn't a good guy.

Like -- I know we're in clown world, but... y'all are talking crazy.

i like emma kenedy and emma had completed a documentary on him then with lots of questions started to dig into it herself this is her second hour long documentary on him and the myths.

some things like his parents locking him in his room for 6 months with the only visits as beatings leave me feeling he needs to be in a perspex cell to feel safe..

a reply to: SprocketUK

"A murderer who spent time in the cell next to Maudsley told the programme: "I felt we were being psychologically murdered.
The system's treatment of Bob was totally dehumanising. To hold someone in an underground cage for over 40 years. It is unforgivable. What Bob did in terms of murdering sex offenders is obviously wrong. But what the system has done to Bob amounts to psychological torture. There are other ways of dealing with prisoners like Bob.""

So, Maudsley was sent down in 1974.

Coincidentally... " The Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) was a British pro-paedophile activist group, founded in October 1974..." en.m.wikipedia.org...

One PIE afiliate -who illegally exchanged pedo-porn through the RoyalMail -- was the ex Head of MI6 and former High Comissioner in Canada, Sir Peter Hayman.

If they are that well connected I tend to see Maudsleys savage treatment as another reflection of thier perverse psyche.

It's proof of just how safe they are.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Killed one of his clients after the client showed him pictures of him (the client) abusing children.
Then he got locked up and while in gaol, he killed another child molestor, a wife killer and another paedo...for this he was locked up in an underground glasss box and doesnt get visitors or any association, not even a telly.

As a Brit I'm intrigued why you choose to spell Jail as Gaol.

Long Sentences are sometimes handed out because the guy is simply a great danger to the public. Like Charles Bronson, never killed anyone. But look at him. Spent 50 years in jail and 23 hours of that in a cell.

originally posted by: Debunkology

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Killed one of his clients after the client showed him pictures of him (the client) abusing children.
Then he got locked up and while in gaol, he killed another child molestor, a wife killer and another paedo...for this he was locked up in an underground glasss box and doesnt get visitors or any association, not even a telly.

As a Brit I'm intrigued why you choose to spell Jail as Gaol.

Long Sentences are sometimes handed out because the guy is simply a great danger to the public. Like Charles Bronson, never killed anyone. But look at him. Spent 50 years in jail and 23 hours of that in a cell.

Its the proper way of spelling it

Well it does seem that I am out of step with some of you and that you regard this guy as sufficiently dangerous to need locking up like this.

I can't help but compare his sentence to the more lenient ones dished out to child killers and rapists, that sort of thing.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Yes, the wickedness coming from the things to our own understanding only lead to the idea of being god and the desire for justice, which is nothing but eye for an eye vengeance. The psychopath picks his punishments carefully as he considers them fit for the mistakes of others thinking of himself as innocent. The punisher enforcing no punishment for his crimes, self-righteous in his wicked pride he is. The punishments are considered good while he commits the same acts as the ones he punishes as an angel of light.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Its the proper way of spelling it

Sure it's the "proper way", and so is Jail. Just that Gaol is very archaic and hardly anyone spells it like that these days. But fair enough.

a reply to: Debunkology


Well I grew up in Hereford, where we have a Gaol Street so always tended towards that way of spelling it

So good I said it twice