blonde poker forum

A true story, opinions sought


*******Debate Civilly please**********


A man, in a moment of madness, kicks another man to death becuase the second man will not hand him over a packet of cigarettes

Court sentences the Murderer to a 15 year minimum tariff, this being the first opportunity he has to ask for Parole.


During his current time in prison he meets a fellow convict, a lady sentenced to 5 years for benefit fraud

They fall in love, and marry. She is now out, he is in prison still

They want to start a family and would like to conceive via artificial insemination. This is refused in the UK by Prison service then the courts

Eventually, having been granted legal aid to fight their cause, they win their battle at the European Court of Human Rights where 12 out of 17 judges rule in their favour that they should be allowed to have artificial insemination (unclear as to whether privately or NHS funded)

The case cost £ six figures for the Government to fight in Strasbourg


Should a prisoner have these "human rights" or should they be forfeited for the term he is behind bars?

Discuss

 
 

Easy.

Forfeited. You gotta pay your bills in life.

http://news.scotsman.com/latest_uk.cfm?id=1895432007


I wrote the inital post from my recollection, here's the corroboration of some of the facts, see link

hang him then we dont need to worry about human rights

Tough one, gut instinct agrees with Tikay or even Ironsides  :o .

BUT if the 2 have genuniely reformed, and she'll be beyond child bearing age before he gets out, then I can see their point.

A slight tangent, I thought prisoners got 'conjugal' visits?

I read due to the aftermath of these eejits in brussels ruling this, then they will be forced to give conjugal rights now whereas before i believe it wasnt a given

incredible society we live in these days

Of course a prisoner who is newly married would want to start a family - it's only natural. He probably also wants a honeymoon somewhere exotic. Maybe he wants a day out at Alton Towers as well.

Tough - he gave all those things up when he went inside. Similarly, she knew the score when she got involved.

She may be fully reformed and paid her debts back to society but he hasnt. He should have to wait the remaining 10 years before he regains the rights of a free man.   If by that time she is unable to bear child then so be it. 

If you cant do the time dont do the crime

The man he kicked to death cant have any/more children , why  should the murderer ?

:goodpost:

Top Reply that!

All this wet do-gooders tosh gets up my nose - it;s time the victims of crimes were given equal rights, too.

Daily mail will have a field day on this one,

firstly the apparant rights of criminals being given priority over the the common good.

secondly britains penal system being overruled by brussels.


ouch....

daily mail you say?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=499744&in_page_id=1770

at least they have a picture. I can now see why artifical insemination would be necessary....

Bet he voted for the AI !!

Castrate him.

Bollocks to that!

how on earth did they get married

there meant to be in prison for punishment FFS

Perhaps if human rights are the issue the judges ought to be considering the rights of the child these people wan to bring into the world.  It isn't reasonable to kick someone to death over anything let alone cigarettes and it's not reasonable to steal or commit fraud, so using basic maths, my feeling is these are not the most ideal candidates to bring a child into the world.  Not particularly good role models and the genetic make up of the kid might very well produce a bloody monster anyway.

Surely allowing these people to bring a child into the world is far less humane than it not being conceived in the first place if that makes sense.  The rights are the parents are not the priority here.  You really give up your rights when you kill someone.   What sort of chance in life does a kid have whose parents have both been in prison and one of them for a violent murder?  That's putting the kid behind the eight ball so to speak from the outset. 

I've often felt prospective parents ought to be screened.  If you want to go fishing or watch TV you need a license, but you can have as many kids as you like regardless of your suitability, assuming you can conceive naturally that is. 

If you want to adopt or foster a child, you're subjected to a rigorous screening process to determine your ability to raise a child...quite right to.  Yet parents who can conceive naturally are not..why not?  Because of human rights?  B*llsh*t.  Being a parent is being a parent regardless of whether you conceive naturally, or adopt.  Good luck manaouvering you way through the adoption or fostering process if you're a convicted murderer.

Kids ought to be afforded the best possible chance in life and if you're not in the position to offer that you shouldn't be a parent. That means financially, emotionally, physically and mahy other words ending in 'ally.  Simple as that.

a prison pen pals network

She described herself as a Natalie Portman lookalike, he fell for her

The rest is history

wow, what a start. do we have any evidence based on "genetics" or other sciences that the children of felons are more likely to be felons themselves, apart from the obvious disadvantage they have in being brought up with parents in jail ? I dont think so.... Also, there is no magic forumla, the parents of Sutcliffe, Hyndley, etc were "normal" people, and yet produced "monsters".

it is incorrect to say that you "give up your rights when you murder someone". You certainly give up some rights, (freedom being the most obvious one) when youare convicted of a serious crime, but the whole point of the court case shows that you do not give up all your rights. What europe is saying is that there are basic human rights which cannot be taken away.

Joseph Mengele had a similar idea about a screening process for prospective parents, his contribution to the master race. just how far do you want to take it ?


so what now, poor people shouldnt be allowed to become parents ? Do you need to have the full set of values before you get allowed to conceive  ? Again, where do you draw the line ?

How about just the same screening process for adopting parents? 

consider the blue touch paper lit.

Castration adds 13 years to life expectancy (and also helps with baldness)

what would happen if our government where to ignore ruling,at the end of the day would we get kicked out of eec, i expect we might get a big fine, but floodgates are going to open now arnt they,i was told by top union officials years ago of rulings about employment laws we where supposed to introduce in this country, i  dont know if all these laws where true, but some things where in the paper, the laws where supposed to force employers  to pay a certain rate for working nights, all stuff like that, they never seemed to be made law by our government,,  it just seems every time someone is right bas...d , the courts look after his human rights, ordinary decent struggling people ask for help  they are told , sorry no money, or sorry very long waiting list  sorry thats the way it is.

I'm not Joseph Mengele, just higlighting that the Priority in parenting cases should be the child, not the parents. 

I've had similar debates with parents who have terminal illnesses who want to have children.  I have Cystic Fibrosis and feel it's not in the child best interests if I can put it like that for me to be a parent as I won't be around to raise him/her.  Others decide that because they desperately want to be a parent then it's ok, but whose needs are greater?  The parents or the child or has to deal with the consequences.

I'm not looking to start a master race, just seems ridiculous to me that anyone can start a family if they can do so naturally, but through so random twist of fate you'll have to be subjected to a invasion screening process if the adoption system is your only means of raising a family.

He'll be out on day release in a couple of months.

Just let me add one thing to the debate.
Talking about all prisoners not just this guy.

The death penalty was abolished because you could condemn an innocent man so to remove that scenario we don't kill 'em anymore, now what if you deny a person the right to have children who was wrongly convicted?

Also how severe does your crime have to be?
Any prisoner?
What about a guy that was attacked in a pub by 3 men who swung a punch back knocking one over and cracking his head killing him instantly, you get around 18 months for manslaughter in these types of cases.
Should he have to give up his rights?

BTW i'm against the ruling in this case but i don't think a blanket ban is right.

Of course he should be allowed, you stop being a human with the accompanying rights because you are in jail?

If Europe said it's o.k and we agree that ECHR superseeds domestic law then you have to accept it.

Everyone seems to trust in the law, government and mainly judiciary as long as as people are being found guilty, as soon as someone gets found not guilty or a trial collapses then all you hear is the hypocrisy of the indignantly benighted who will assert that it's a miscarriage of justice and the system didn't work when what they really mean is it didn't go the way they wanted which often is something completely different to justice and applied law, a difference conveniently indiscernible to your average daily express reader.

Of course i might be wrong, i dont know if it says in the ECHR or human rights act1998 that one ceases to retains ones human rights if incarcerated but seeing as even prisoners in POW camps had basic human rights pursuant to the Geneva convention i doubt very much that in a modern day western prison facility the basic freedoms of inmates arnt impeccably protected, as they should be.

It always surprises me how quickly proponents of law and order discount the inherent importance of civil liberties.

The working time directives were introduced but you can opt out of them all :D

self defence shouldnt be in jail never mind giving up his rights

I'm sorry BUT..  for a start ...prison pen pals ? what a fkn joke...do they come in forum sections..ie Rapist 18 - 30  Rapists 30 - 60. Peado's likes boys seeks freinship /  Peado's Girls.   Male lifer seeks simlar to discuss the the finer things in more detail. Female PE tutor seeks lesbian sex from minor any race considered.


Then to the main issue. They were allowed to marry.  ;frustrated;

Now they want to start a family. I suggest they wait until he leaves his prison, see if they are still in love (lol) then start ..if he is too old tough luck prick, wake up you have no rights.

Yet you will get jailed for it.

Right now that is off my chest...anyone for poker.

 rotflmfao

been saying this for years.

imo it should be allowed.

not if the circumstances were as you discribed

3 people attacking one guy the guy lashes out in self defence concecting and hitting one killing him

he would walk free no charge against him


ffs you can even use a weapon in your defence killing a guy and walk away free aslong as its proven to be SELF DEFENCE (ie you cant be sat waiting at the top of the stairs shooting a burgler or shooting a guy in the back while he is running away after seeing your gun)

Fek me reading this thread its like the lynch mob online.

hang him

Well for a start it's not fool proof. I'm adopted and my parents got divorced. Who saw that coming? Is that an ideal outcome? Well they went through the screening process. There are way too many uncertainties that can never be measured and if everything was decided on a pre set list then the variance in the human race would reduce eventually to almost nothing.

how do I write to that PE Tutor ??

No way, what's nextanti natal classes together bonding sessions with new child day trip to zoo etc etc makes u wanna quit England doesn't it the unbelievable is now the norm

 rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao

but if it WAS A BAD BEAT  THEN FAIR ENOUGH,

Miss B Licker   (call me button for short)

69,  Just cause I'm a woman it's ok  Avenue

Trust City

Lipsstink.

But don't tell Ginger it was me who passed it to you.

Who cares?

Interesting one.  This is the relevant article of the Act:


My personal point of view is that it seems to be pushing the boundaries of what was intended by the legislation to suggest that not allowing AI would be in breach of that article.  Legislation is always open to interpretation (as is shown here by the fact that the ruling was not unanimous).  It would be interesting to hear the debates and reasoning given for the ruling.

What about the child?

No father around for the formative years of its life. Ex con for a mother, cant be a good start for it.

Forget all this human rights bollocks, make them suffer, make him realise that he is prison beacause he took someones life, stop him from creating a new life until he is free man.

Should a prisoner be able to post sperm to his missus? I'm with Flushy on this one.

Too many of us are exhibiting the typical knee-jerk indignance that is common whenever we hear a story in the papers of prisoners who are doing anything other than breaking rocks. (How very dare they)

I can't blame you, that's exactly why the story is there. To stir emotions and sell papers. You villager puppets must dance when your strings are pulled so go ahead and wave those pitchforks.

The chestnut argument about having beurocrats reign over who gets to have kids with child licences or whatever has been either jokingly, naiively, idiotically or fascistically suggested. (pick one) 
I find the very prospect of such a thing sick. We as individuals, and by extension governments and judicial systems, have no right to decide who can procreate and who can't.

But what about the rights of the, as yet, unconcieved children. If we wanted to, we can justify just about anything to safeguard these (including genocide) Bottom line, if I live in a trailer and want to have babies with my PE teacher, it's nobody's buisness but ours. You don't like it, move to China.

Wrong Wrong Wrong Tank.

A man goes to prison he should lose his rights to the 'normal' things in life.

IAn HUntley had a playstation 2 days after their release in his cell. We pay tax to look afer the likes of him and maxine carr and the wee prick that killed jamie bulger.  Why are these idiots treated like guests in a hotel rather than a convict in a prison. BEING SENTENCED TO A JAIL TERM THEN YOU LOSE ALL YOUR RIGHTS TO LIVE A FULL & NORMAL LIFE IMO.

Time for the weekly spot the difference contest.

- FULL & NORMAL LIFE
- playstation 2

Answers on a postcard (so long as there's no spunk on it)

50's pretty old to be having more children isn't it? She may not have that many years left if her photo's accurate

http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band112/b112-6.html (http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band112/b112-6.html)

??????????????????????????????

 :D

 :goodpost:  Totally agree.

 ;applause; ;applause; ;applause; ;applause; ;applause;

I feel sorry for the kid if this ever happens. She is 49yrs old so would be 50+ when he/she is born which increase the chances of the child being born with disabilities. At 50+ the mother would find it hard to keep up with your average tantrum toddler never mind a child with problems.

She was convicted of benefit fraud so presumably she is still on the dole. Her (so called) hubby could be out in a couple of years but how long do you think he will stick around with a new/much older wife he has never lived with before and a screaming toddler he has not had the chance to bond with!!

He will be going from one prison to another which is likely to screw his brain up even more, at worse it will result in him going back to jail for murdering the missus...at best he will leave her and the poor kid will be brought up by a geriatric mother who will not be able to cope.

I think I watch too many soaps :-)

Its just ridiculous that this case was even allowed to be taken so far.

A rare, carefully considered and accurate post from Bolt.

 ;hattip; ;hattip; ;hattip; ;hattip; ;hattip; ;hattip; ;hattip; ;hattip; ;hattip;

Cant be me that said it then ;)

u get a bible for your birthday bolt?

Not that I'm so learned as to be able to accurately discern the respective teachings of: Thomas Jefferson; Hierocles and Eleanor Roosevelt but these civil rights exponents only but seem to affirm the idea that capital punishment and archaic suspension of human rights has no place in a civilised modern day society and am glad that transcendental pioneers thus fought assiduously to implement, improve and sustain civil liberties to protect the rights of the individual however hard manipulated society tries to reject and bend these freedoms to facilitate their ego and suppress their fear of modern day criminality, comprised of course entirely of chavs, hoodies and paedophiles.

yes, i took it down the local baptist church to see if they'd give me a tenner for it......................they banned me from their property.

 rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao

well said Tankie

It's amazing..I go to sleep after reading a pokerforum and wake up.open my IE and it has turned into the Daily Mail "Burn the Feckers.BURN THEM ALL!!!" forum.

I think most people shouldn't be allowed to breed..or vote..or speak for that matter..this thread once again confirms my opinion that most people really are better off keeping quiet about most things.

Out of interest, who would be paying for the procedure?

Is it clear what the 'procedure' is though?  I presume we're not talking about full scale IVF here, as to qualify for that I think there would need to be some physical difficulty (other than being inside) in conceiving naturally for that to be considered an option on the NHS.  If it's just a matter of her being inseminated, I can't imagine it will be an expensive procedure (turkey baster?!).

So given the ECHR ruling that they should be allowed to have a child, what's the preference - AI on the NHS, or he gets to have his end away once a month until she gets pregnant?

Having seen the photos, surely having to knob her once a month is punishment enough for ANY man !!

Oi - at least she's got a boyfriend...... sigh..... whats the address for the penpals club?  ::)

Apparently the inmates had wagers on whether he would be allowed to send his sperm through to his missus.

The warders were a bit concerned at all the money changing hands and so confronted a few of the prisoners about it.

The main protaganist told one of the screws it was nothing to worry about. "Don't fret, we're all bluffing anyway!"

"what do you mean?" asked the curious warder.

"Well we're betting on the come..."

---

Stupid jokes aside, Bolt's elaborate prose has won me over. Are you available to take over from Gordon Brown anytime soon?

He phoned me up didn't he, said: "bolt, it's all going a bit pear shape this running the country game, we're being investigated by the old bill over some money and an important Cd's gone missing, can you help me out"?

I said:"listen Gorden, what CD is it, was it your Rod Stewart greatest hits, dont worry about it, i'll download you some songs and send em to you, then you just keep on you computer ok? as for the dough, what's happend, what do you need? theres a geezer in chelsea owes me 300 quid, if you go and pick it up off him you can keep it".

He's said:" bolt its a bit more involved than that, the cd had some important details on it and the old bill thing needs some sorting out, can you come in, i'll get rid of the deputy pm and you can do it"

I said: "listen Gorden, i'm getting 55% rake back from 12 tabling FR, i dont need the work mate"

he said:" you country needs you bolt"

I said: "you should've thought about that before you had me up in front of the district magistrate for not paying me TV license, i have to pay 3 pound a week cos of that and it's give me the hump, i dont class jeremy kyle as proper tv anyway but the judge wouldnt swallow it"

He's gone: " blah blah blah blah blah"!

I said: "Gordan have you been drinking"?

"yes"

I hung up on the man after that cos he gets a bit racist once he's started drinking Super T.

harsh

boldie wome of my views are a little to the right MOST of my views are on the left

one thing i am on the right side of is the death penalty

murder is murder

life for a life

if your dead you cant kill no more

On a completely mad conspiratorial note.

Do youthink the government does this on purpose?

I mean fight a hopeless case..a case they 're never going to win when it comes to prisoners rights (They did the same with slopping out when surely everyone has the right to take a piss or shit in a normal toilet rather than crap in a bucket or piss in a bottle?) goes all the way to the European court of law where, as expected, it gets thrown out. Now the government can say "WE are tough on criminals but Europe makes us allow it"..thereby they can cover up that they have seriously been neglecting the prison system over the past few years and everyone is nice and pissed off with "those mad liberals in Brussels" and forgets just how much their government is actually to blame for the mess the system is in.

just a thought

Boldie are you actually suggesting that prisoners DONT have to endure theres and there cellmates feaces for days on end? this is unbelievable, it's not a holiday camp.

next they'll be wanting bread and water!

I know..I'm a bleeding heart liberal...I'd type a longer response but I am watching "An inconvenient Truth" while knitting myself new woolen underwear. :)

my mates dad went to jail for 5 days for drunk and disorderly and affray after hitting the bottle a bit to hard after his divorce, diamond bloke and has since got himself straight after going through a very tough patch in hes life, anyway he got very ill on his first night there and needed antibiotics and to be put on a drip, to my horror i found out that the prison had a medical wing where he was taken to recover for two days!! this is shoking i'm sure you'd agree, i mean after all he's a criminal, how can he have ANY rights least of all to free health care, i mean it's unreal, you can imagine my disgust at him being treated like a human being with human rights as opposed to having NO RIGHTS AT ALL, surely he should've been left to die!

I know!...It's easier to see a dentist or doctor in jail than it is in prison!...Shoot them all...or stick them all on an island somewhere and let's forget about them...we could be spending ALL that money on feeding hungry children in Chelsea!

whatever next - prisoners allowed to watch telly?

I watched an episode of eastenders where the guy was in jail and he had a visitor, you just cant make it up, only on t.v!

That's it, i'm leaving this country.

They even get cookery lessons.

First week in, MikkyT learned how to toss a salad ffs.

 rotflmfao

and if you are dead they cant bring you back to life when they find out that you were wrongly convicted ... you know thats happened once or twice before right ??

You're too soft Kev.

I think they should give people the death penalty BEFORE they kill someone..that way.."if your dead you can never kill"...

 rotflmfao

 ;tightend; ;tightend; ;tightend; ;tightend; ;tightend; rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao

POTW