On 24 Dec 2009 at 3:12pm Malfunction wrote:
ITS NEARLY CHRISTMAS TIME FOR TURKEY, BEEF,PORK OR WHATEVER WE DECIDE TO EAT. TIME FOR JOY WITH OUR FAMILIES AND FRIENDS. PLEASE SPEND TIME TO DWELL A MOMENT AND THINK OF MARTIN & NATHAN WHO WILL BE AWAY FROM THERE LOVED ONES. IM VERY SORRY LADS YOU DONT DESERVE THIS TREATMENT.
On 24 Dec 2009 at 3:17pm Stig of the dump wrote:
Sorry but i'll be thinking of the real heroes, the ones who have lost their lives whilst out in Afghanistan
On 24 Dec 2009 at 7:06pm Eh? wrote:
I'll be thinking of two dead firemen and their families.
On 24 Dec 2009 at 7:34pm supporter wrote:
why use all capitals? shouting is not needed especially for those 2.
On 24 Dec 2009 at 7:34pm Bunter wrote:
I feel sorry for anyone in prison over Christmas - but assume they've had a trial and been found guilty.
On 24 Dec 2009 at 7:40pm Scapegoats? wrote:
Scapegoats for who exactly? I mean, who else could possibly be responsible and passing the blame off on them?
On 24 Dec 2009 at 8:30pm Anon wrote:
Give it a rest you lot, if you havent got anything nice to say then dont say anything. Merry Christmas to EVERYONE and i hope all families have as best a Christmas as they can without their loved ones.
On 24 Dec 2009 at 9:15pm St Nicholas wrote:
For Christ's sake, it's Christmas!!!!
Try to spread some seasonal cheer and good will to ALL over the festive season.
On 24 Dec 2009 at 10:40pm Cliffebimbo wrote:
At the end of the day, the last three years have been punishment enough, there probably hasn't been a day that has gone by that Martin & Nathan have not thought about what happened that day. There is no benefit to have them inside, and it will actually be Martin's wife and two other children who will be suffering. They have no home, money or business.
On 24 Dec 2009 at 11:39pm The Tooth Fairy wrote:
Prison is not just about keeping dangerous people off the streets (which uncle Martin and cousin Nath are clearly not). It is a punishment. A punishment for breaking the law. If there is no punishment then there is no rule of law.
However, on a personal level, I feel they were harshly treated. Negligent they were, responsible for two deaths? I don't think so. Blame had to be pinned on someone, and that someone was certainly not going to be a senior fire officer. The case was a 'done deal', they were better off pleading guilty from the start. As for Martin sticking his face in a tv camera.............well, that was a wise move.
On 25 Dec 2009 at 6:39pm .....Ghd..... wrote:
As an outsider, looking in I feel that Martin and Nathan were dealt a harsh sentence, while I fully appreciate 2 fireman lost thier lives, Martin and Nathan never intentionally set out to maim or Kill anybody, is it only me that feels that the sentance was harsh and over the top!!!
On 25 Dec 2009 at 6:48pm Cliffebimbo wrote:
Tooth Fairy, and the point I missed was????????
On 25 Dec 2009 at 8:13pm Crimbo wrote:
Cliffebimbo wrote: 'At the end of the day, the last three years have been punishment enough, there probably hasn't been a day that has gone by that Martin & Nathan have not thought about what happened that day. There is no benefit to have them inside, and it will actually be Martin's wife and two other children who will be suffering.'
Which is exactly what you could say about any prisoner at any time - though I doubt if Cliffebimbo would show such sympathy to anyone else.
On 25 Dec 2009 at 8:23pm Cliffebimbo wrote:
But Martin and Nathan are in prison due to a terrible accident, they did not intend for anything to happen to anyone. How many people are incarcerated for doing something accidentally? Quite a small proportion of prisoners, I would guess.
On 25 Dec 2009 at 9:06pm Crimbo wrote:
'Accidentally'? I just checked the BBC report again: 'Prosecutors argued that the Winters were aware of the hazards posed by housing such fireworks in a metal container, which was not authorised by the company's licence. Jurors also heard the Winters' defence that they could not be considered responsible for the two deaths because it was the duty of firefighters to be aware of the dangers.'
On 25 Dec 2009 at 11:04pm Brixtonbelle wrote:
"Martin and Nathan never intentionally set out to maim or Kill anybody".
That's why they were convicted of MANSLAUGHTER. If they had deliberately set out to kill the firemen it would have been MURDER. It's about responsibility for actions and if their negligence in fully alerting the fire crews to the dangers posed by their site led to two people's deaths then they are guilty of manslaughter and must serve their punishment. many people who are not dangerous are in prison for far lesser crimes.
On 26 Dec 2009 at 7:01am Crimbo wrote:
Brixtonbelle - Exactly. I can't understand why people think there should be one rule for their friends and one for everyone else.
On 26 Dec 2009 at 9:36am shooter wrote:
If an electrian turned up at your house to carry out a rewire and you told him that you had switched the power off he would never take your word. For it as it would be his duty of care to ensure the power was turned off. Surley the same principle applied here.if your electrician was electrcuted would you be guilty of manslaghter ? A professional should always assume the worst case scenario regardless of what others say .it may save their life.
On 26 Dec 2009 at 9:54am Bunter wrote:
So what you're saying Shooter is that the dead firefighters should be put on trial.
On 26 Dec 2009 at 1:37pm foo_thumb wrote:
Corporate Manslaugter - either they're guilty or the justice system is rubbish. Go figure. Have fun in the showers guys!
On 26 Dec 2009 at 5:50pm The Tooth Fairy wrote:
On 26 Dec 2009 at 9:28pm Cliffebimbo wrote:
I asked what the point was, TF.
On 27 Dec 2009 at 4:18pm The Tooth Fairy wrote:
Well Bimbo, let's start with some of the assumptions you've made. 'But Martin and Nathan are in prison due to a terrible accident'. Not true. The start of the fire was obviously an accident though this started a chain of events that, due to their criminal activity ended with the deaths of two people who were there to help them.
'the last three years have been punishment enough'. Has it? They've not been on remand, in fact they've continued to run their firework import and display business.
'it will actually be Martin's wife and two other children who will be suffering'
Read Crimbo's post regarding this one.
'They have no home, money or business'
Martins wife runs a separate unconnected business does she not?
So, Bimbo, are we getting the point yet?
On 27 Dec 2009 at 7:30pm Cliffebimbo wrote:
TF, I would be interested to know what business Martin's wife runs, cos I know nothing about it. As I presume you know me (and could possibly be a friend of mine), I presume you have seen how the family are living? Regarding what they have been doing for the last three years, don't you think the threat of court, prison and the knowledge that two men died has been a punishment?
On 27 Dec 2009 at 8:13pm Anon wrote:
Cliffebimbo, he cant be a friend because friends would talk to you in person and not through a forum. It's amazing how brave people are, going under silly names and behind their commputer thinking they know all the facts, but face to face they are cowards. I would ignore this thread as they will find someone else or some other topic to have a moan about before long. :-))
On 27 Dec 2009 at 10:33pm Mr Mogg wrote:
From the paper today:
More than 6,000 rapists, robbers, paedophiles and violent criminals have been given community service orders or suspended sentences even though courts were warned they posed a high risk of causing serious harm if they reoffended.
The alarming figures are revealed today as Britains chronically overcrowded prisons reach breaking point. There are a record 84,231 inmates in prisons in England and Wales just 1,755 short of the capacity.
Critics say that weaker sentences are being handed down by judges and magistrates who are under pressure to cut the numbers they send to jail.
Figures from the Ministry of Justice disclose that between 2006 and 2009, 6,370 criminals were given a community order or suspended sentence after having been assessed as posing a high or a very high risk of causing serious harm if they reoffended.
A further 96,000 offenders given such sentences were deemed to pose a medium risk of serious harm, according to the Ministry.
Shadow Justice Secretary Dominic Grieve said last night: These figures are deeply shocking. People will rightly be concerned that so many offenders who are high-risk are given little more than a slap on the wrist.
Gordon Brown has failed to provide enough prison places. As a result, judges and magistrates have been put under pressure to give community sentences. However, it is imperative that public safety is not compromised by giving community sentences inappropriately to those who pose a danger to the public.
Before sentencing, the Ministry of Justices Offender Assessment System known as OASys is used to identify the potential risks posed by offenders and to advise the courts.
A Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said last night: Sentencing is a matter for the independent judiciary. We will always provide enough prison places for serious offenders, those who should be behind bars the most dangerous, the seriously persistent offenders and the most violent.
However, prison is not always the right answer for less serious offenders. In some cases, a tough community sentence can be more effective than a short prison sentence in terms of rehabilitating offenders, turning them away from crime and therefore giving greater protection to the public.
On 27 Dec 2009 at 11:16pm Brixtonbelle wrote:
Sorry - which paper is this from - is it a total quote or is part of it your opinion, Mr Mogg ?
On 28 Dec 2009 at 10:37am Crimbo wrote:
Cliffebimbo wrote:'...don't you think the threat of court, prison and the knowledge that two men died has been a punishment?'
As I wrote earlier, that is something you could say about anyone else, anywhere, at any time. The only difference in this case is that you know these people so you think it is somehow different.
On 28 Dec 2009 at 4:33pm The Tooth Fairy wrote:
Don't hold your breath Crimbo, in Bimbos world members of her family are free to break the law with the only punishment being remorse and regret.
On 28 Dec 2009 at 8:50pm Cliffebimbo wrote:
Tooth Fairy, I think you are getting me confused with someone who hasn't got a brain. I am one of the first to admit if one of my family has done something wrong. This is not down to family loyalty, I would be saying the same about anyone in the same position. Yes, they did wrong. BUT, I do think that their sentence is harsh, something I believe that you said earlier (and I quote) "on a personal level, I feel they were harshly treated. Negligent they were, responsible for two deaths? I don't think so. Blame had to be pinned on someone, and that someone was certainly not going to be a senior fire officer."
On 28 Dec 2009 at 9:12pm The Tooth Fairy wrote:
Indeed Bimbo, I do think they were harshly treated. However, rightly or wrongly they were convicted of manslaughter. Therefore you cannot just say that they have suffered enough these past three years so lets just forget about it. I also wrote 'If there is no punishment then there is no rule of law', which is the 'point' I 've been trying to make.