[Cas]

@slayer wrote:

The only crumb of comfort I took from this case was the Justice system actually getting something right

His sentence was life imprisonment with NO release…ever

He’d be better receiving a capital punishment but we can’t do that so finally a sentence which fit- only way out is in a box- scum of the earth- lets hope he’s let loose in a general wing first before he gets his solitary protection

In this case Slayer yes, he did receive the correct sentence and as the judge said, he should never be released, it is only tho, a recommendation, and theres always the possibility that he will be. Lets hope as you say, that he’s let loose in a general wing before he gets his solitary protection.

I read also in the paper today, a similar thing happening to a young baby, not far from me in fact, in Rainham, in Essex. Once again the baby died because the moron in whose charge he was left, couldn’t handle him crying, poor little soul, he’s in a place now where no one else can ever harm him. The perpetrator in this case though, received a sentence of only 3 years, the judge said that it was the maximum he could hand down, although he wasn’t happy doing it, if he had his way, it would have been a lot longer. The father of the child who died, called out to this animal as he was led away, that he himself can wait the 3 years because when it was up, he would be a dead man!! :twisted:

[Cas]

@prettypink wrote:

I actually Agree with the not smoking around people that dont Cas, Even around my friends house`s I stand outside, even if they say dont worry! just have a fag in here.

Even in the pubs, I sort of agree with, even though, I wish they would give us somewhere
warm to stand… But to say, having a cigerette,in your own car, can cause other people to lose their life. Whatever next! :roll: :D

Well yea I understand what your saying. Even when I did smoke I thought it was a good idea too, and on the whole it didn’t bother me as much as I thought it would, not being able to smoke in the pub.

But to even hint that the possibility of having a smoke in your own car is likely to cause accidents and injury to other people is ridiculous, as you say. Where do you draw the line in that case, do you stop people from playing their radios, or cd’s in their cars. Not to mention the fact, and it has happened, how many accidents have happened over people checking their sat navs! How many sat navs come to that, have caused accidents by sending drivers the wrong way in general and the wrong way up one way streets!!!

[Cas]

@prettypink wrote:

@Lollipop wrote:

@prettypink wrote:

How does smoking and driving, put peoples life in danger?

Because if you are driving and smoking at the same time, you may not be concentrating on the road. Which may cause you to have an accident, and cost some poor person their life.

Rubbish!! If you smoked you would know why I said that. I think
instead of targetting the smokers, maybe concentrate, on “Drunk” driving first!!
Iv never heard of anyone causing an accident through having a fag, while driving.

No offence to you Lolipop, But Its total B*llocks!!

=D> =D> =D> Well said

I’m an ex smoker, but even so i’m still sick to death of the constant whining and of it all being against the smoker. All you lot who still complain about it, I bet most of you drive cars which also emit dangerous toxins into the atmosphere :twisted: :roll: :roll:

[Cas]

@Lollipop wrote:

@prettypink wrote:

How does smoking and driving, put peoples life in danger?

Because if you are driving and smoking at the same time, you may not be concentrating on the road. Which may cause you to have an accident, and cost some poor person their life.

If your changing a radio station, or cd while driving it also alters your concentration.

If your checking your sat nat it also alters your concentration

The list in endless, where do you draw the line :roll: :roll:

[Cas]

I’d like to think that this piece of scum would get what he deserves in prison. Unfortunaly it’s unlikely to be the case. He’ll be under a section 43 which will in some form protect him. I do sincerely hope that there are more than a few of his guards who are willing to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear, and maybe some of the other ”criminals” there for lesser crimes will give him a taste of his own medicine.

I’d also be interested in knowing why!! the mother wasn’t also charged. She must have known to some extent what was going on, by doing nothing about it surely she’s guilty by association!!

I still feel that there is an awful lot to be said for castration of him and sterilising of her to prevent any more poor babys like Jessica, from being brought into the world, merely to suffer at the hands of animals such as these :twisted: :twisted: In fact that’s probably unfair on animals :twisted:

[Cas]

@waspish wrote:

@sharongooner wrote:

Its a bit like suing the pub landlord for serving the alcholic.

There is only so far you can go before you have to admit the problem is yours and you need help.

Suing the bookies will not help his recovery for his illness, and will take the focus of his illness away from himself. This is Not what an addict actually needs.

If he wins the case that makes him seem he was right, when clearly he wasnt.

Why does someone with an income of 30k plus per month gamble? Because he is ill and that is what he should be addressing, rather than trying to cream back some of his money.

Apparantly the Ryder Cup was the deciding factor in this case. Had the outcome been the opposite would he have given his winnings back because he was on a “ban”? Course he would :wink:

i once had a very animated discussion with the wife of a customer in my pub. she came in and started shouting and swearing at me for selling beer to her husband every tea time. she said i was a family wrecker and a scum bag. she ranted about the fact that he was a drunk, and the fact that he couldnt help himself, he just had to drink every day, and as i served him beer it was. in her opinion, my fault that he went home every night pi$$ed as a fart . [her words]. when i asked her why she blamed me for the fact that her hubby was always drunk. she stated that i was the one with the pub, and it was my job to take his money off him when he should be spending it on his family. so in essence i was taking money from her and her children.
she simply couldnt grasp the fact that it was he, who had the problem. it wasnt my fault that he got drunk every day. yes he called for a couple of pints. but i wasnt responsible for the fact that he went to 5 other pubs before he came to mine.
having an addiction to anything is useually because you are an addictive person. some are, some arent. how many people do we know who cant just have one pint ? they have to get legless. ? how many people do we know who cant have one bet. ? they chase their losses until they lose everything ? even people who go to the gym can become obsessive. whatever the addiction is, they and they alone are responsible for deciding where the cut off point is. and somepeople sadly just dont know when to give up.

You are aware I take it Waspy, that you are in fact responsible. It does state under licensing laws, that one of the pple you shouldn’t serve with alchohol along with policemen, firemen etc., in uniform, is someone who is clearly already drunk. So if this man had visited 5 other pubs before coming to yours, and drank 2 pints in each, it was up to you not to serve him in yours :wink: so in a way, she did have a point! :wink:

[Cas]

@~Pebbles~ wrote:

@chickenman wrote:

Shes a money grabbing hooker and hes as thick as pig sh1t for getting married to her :roll:

Has it ever occurred to you that she might be telling the truth?? I think its absolutely disgusting the way she has been treated by the media.

Not for a minute :lol:

She’s a gold digger,,,,,,,always was and always will be :lol:

As for the dreadful way she’s seemingly been treated by the media,,,,,she’s courted it!! live with it!!

[Cas]

@r.O.T.T wrote:

@rainbowbrite wrote:

@cas wrote:

Well heres the thing

Didn’t any of you know that without his input, then none of us would know
how to deal with a choking child. You all must know how much we needed
him to tell us :roll: :roll: :roll: :wink: :-

Thing is cas, is that it is known to most who take a first aid test that children over a certain age should not be subjected to the abdominal thrust. Back slaps are most appropriate.

But whatever the issue here i have no room to talk as i dont know the age of the child.

But id like to raise awareness try back slaps first – then abdominal if the childs body is mature enough.

i’m a first aider
the point of first aid is to administer it successfully
back slaps are for minor choking
my boy was purple in the face and panicking i knew instantly it wasnt a minor block
what i did worked
the post has proved that most of you think you know
but are not really sure
pats and cas will eventually choke on their own vomit

I wouldn’t dream of giving you such satisfaction :roll: [-(

[Cas]

@Lollipop wrote:

A child who is choking is no laughing matter.

I didn’t say it was,,,, :roll: :roll: ,,,,,,only the original poster fits that description

[Cas]

Well heres the thing

Didn’t any of you know that without his input, then none of us would know
how to deal with a choking child. You all must know how much we needed
him to tell us :roll: :roll: :roll: :wink: :-

[Author]

Posts