A controversial One

[kinboshi]

Castrate him.

[MKKfish]

Castrate him.

Bollocks to that!

[Ironside]

how on earth did they get married

there meant to be in prison for punishment FFS

[WarBwastard]

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.

[TightEnd]

how on earth did they get married

there meant to be in prison for punishment FFS

a prison pen pals network

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

The rest is history

[lazaroonie]

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.

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".

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. 

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.

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. 

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 ?

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.

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 ?

[WarBwastard]

How about just the same screening process for adopting parents? 

[TightEnd]

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.

consider the blue touch paper lit.

[77dave]

Castrate him.

Bollocks to that!

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

[steeveg]

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.

[WarBwastard]

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.

[ifm]

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.

[bolt pp]

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.

[ifm]

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.

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

[Ironside]

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?

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