Murder

[Dick Moby]

Harold Shipman was one person and he was guilty of many killings. I'm speaking of 3 different cases with 3 different killers. Doesn't seem like a reduction to me when more people think they can kill.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]If a small town has 3 murders in recent years to me that means the trend is going up.[/quote]

The population of my home city, Sheffield, went down from the 70s to millenium:

1971 = 572,794
1981 = 530,844
1991 = 528,708
2001 = 513,234

Are you saying that is proof the population of the UK went down too during those 30 years?

[David Johnson]

!!!**!!

[Dick Moby]

No but it proves that some people in Sheffield are smarter than others and leaving the place

[Sam Slater]

So, regardless of what you think about Sheffield, my example shows your theory about murder rates going up is poppycock.

Thank you, whale cock.

Thread closed!

[max_tranmere]

"They obviously weren't Black". Not sure if I agree with that Arginald, black-on-black murder in London happens semi-regularly, it gets a mention 15 minutes into the 30 minute London news programme - occasionally a bit higher but not usually - it never makes it onto the national news. Ben Kinsella, the white lad murdered in Islington a while back was massive, all over the national tv news, front page of newspapers, his sister became very prominent in our national life and she even met the Prime Minister. It was such a big deal that even local gangsters got involved and said they would find those who did it:

[frankthring]

The answer is simple, Dick, to murder someone in this country was once
major news because it meant, if found guilty, you stood a strong chance
of losing your own life via execution. This made the whole concept of
murder thus dramatic news (for the newspapers) and set in stark terms the
moral issue - murder was so heinous that it meant the killer could die.
I totally understand those people who object to the death penalty, their
fears of a judicial mistake.....but there were no majority verdicts in those
days and people were willing to trust in the judicial system as (99%) of
the time beyond reproach.
Today killers know they will serve only a few years - unless they have committed
several murders or are notorious (such as Peter Sutcliffe). Human life is cheap.
Kill someone and you are out in a dozen years, perhaps less. And far more
people than in the old days get away with manslaughter and a shorter sentence.
You can say Capital Punishment is wrong or no deterrent - but it clearly
highlights the issue of murder and in its day thus made the whole thing for
most people more sensational than today (in the UK).

[Trumpton]

Murders do still do occur, but the offence has been changed to 'manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility' and to 'culpable homicide' which is not categorised as murder.

A well used scenario which the CPS will enact is when a retard uses arson to burn down a property that contains his/her victims who are then burnt to death. Back in the day the Police and CPS would investigate this a murder. These days because of a wealth of political correctness enforcements on the Police and CPS they are encouraged to give the retard offender the benefit of every iota of doubt.

[JamesW]

Trumpton wrote:

> Murders do still do occur, but the offence has been changed to
> 'manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility' and
> to 'culpable homicide' which is not categorised as murder.


There is no such thing as 'culpable homicide' in English law, although it does exist in Scottish law.