Sutcliffe launches legal challenge against 'die in jail' ruling.

[Ally]

You know what's ironic? The fact that the actual victims of violence or those on this thread who have been personally affected by Sutcliffe himself are tripping all over themselves apologizing for any unintended offense caused by the airing of their views, while the Captain of the Compassion Brigade sails aloft on his smug platform of holier-than-thou consideration for others, so convinced in the superiority of his opinion that he cares not a whit for the offense he may have caused in the airing of it, making light and making mock.

That's irony.

[protohistorian]

Fisherman to be irony you would have had to establish a logical argument for the maintenance of life over execution. You have yet to do this. Every time we get close you revert to the emotional argument of "it makes us savages". You cannot rhetorically counterpoint a non existant feature. Dave

[Fisherman]

Zodiac writes:

"As it has turned out, I think that, on the whole, I probably made the right descision to do it. It seems to have given everyone a chance to express their views, feelings and opinions both on Sutcliffe and on serial killers, rapists, paedophiles etc. in general."

Hi Zodiac! Out on these boards, you will find much knowledge, a good deal of compassion, bull-headed stubborness, humiliation, encouraging and a good deal more. It is anybodys choice to step forward and ask a question or state a wiew. It involves risks all the time, I´m afraid, but it also offers great opportunities. If you feel you were right to step forward, I am happy for your sake.

"The only things I have been deeply hurt by has been your off hand treatment of Natalie, who had just taken a hugh step by speaking out for the victim, as a victim herself, and your egregious and repeated insistance on comparing the value of Sutcliffe's life with those of his victims. You have used Sonia's mother at least twice as part of your argument. Personally, I find this unforgivable without at least some kind of an apology."

I have never intended to treat Natalie in any off-hand manner. It became obvious to me through Claires post that I had somewhat misinterpreted Natalies posts, and I have stated that I am sorry for it. That stands.

I realize that you do not think that any comparison can be made inbetween the lives of Peter Sutcliffe and his victims, as well as those who have suffered from being friends of or related to those victims. Let me say that I have every form of respect for your stance on the matter, and let me add that I have had no intention to harm your feelings - or anybody else´s for that matter - by speaking up for what I sincerely believe: that every human being, no matter what that human being has done, should be treated with some sort of dignity. I genuinely believe that it is in the best interest of everyone. If we were to throw Sutcliffe to the dogs, we would not be acting as humans, but instead we would have taken one step along the road he himself walked.
So, Zodiac, my stance is not something that makes Sutcliffe an equal of the rest of us. It is instead a precaution to stop the rest of us from becoming more like him. It is rewarding bestialism with something else than bestialism, and believing that we are a lot better off by it.

In conclusion, I have no intention of comparing Sutcliffe to the rest of us. If I had had such an intention, I would not have demanded that he stays in jail and dies there, would I? If I have come across as if I did see Sutcliffe as an equal, and if I have thus hurt you, then you have my sincere apologies for it.

This reasoning of course also stretches to my words on Wilma McCann. I have never intended to slight her or her relatives in any way. Why would I? She was subjected to something that nobody should be subjected to, is something that many people would say, me included. And that, exactly that, is why I also say that harming Peter Sutcliffe or killing him, would be to subject him too to something nobody should be subjected to. I can see no good coming from such an action.
That is not to say that I somehow put the two on an equal basis - but it is to say that just as what happened to Wilma McCann was an evil thing, so it would be evil to harm Sutcliffe. He is perhaps a thousand times more deserving to die than Wilma McCann was, but a thousand times is not enough to justify violence on his or anybody elses behalf in my point of wiew.
If this offends you, I am sorry, and I apologize to you for it, Zodiac.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Dawe writes:

"...to be irony ..."

Well, Dave, that was what it was. I think Ally caught on, at least.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ally writes:

"That's irony."

It´s slander and lies, Ally. Nothing else. But you seem quite content to debate at that level, for some reason.
I have clearly stated that I have no problem with others disagreeing with me. I do, however, have a lot of problems with people calling me names and inferring that I am not honest. It is no decent way to debate, and it is way below your normal standards, Ally.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ally]

People don' t need to make inference in what I write. If I think you are a liar, I'll call you a liar. What I think you are is smug. And I have said so. What I observed is Zodiac, making apologies for any offense her views might have caused, and you not bothering to respond except to make another sarcastic, mocking post to Dave.

I waited before I made my reply, assuming you were in the process of writing a reply to zodiac, but when I checked Who's online, found that you were in fact not doing so and made my reply, at which point, much later, you decide to respond to her.

I said you made light and you made mock, and doing so right after someone makes an aw-teary-apology is not what one expects from someone trumpeting his moral high ground and superior compassion. You ignored her post to take a jab at Dave. That is not a lie, that is exactly what you did.

Now you may say you were using the time to think of something to say to Zodiac and that's perfectly fine. But even I, who make absolutely no bones about not giving a rat's rear what anyone thinks and have no interest in professing compassion, realize that if you post something mocking after someone's deep teary post, you are going to look like a dick even if you are not responding directly to the person. So be prepared for the consequences when you go for the cheap dig rather than something more meaningful on a topic such as this.

[c.d.]

Luckily, beating a dead horse is not a capital offense because SOME PEOPLE on this thread are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. It might be time to give it a rest guys. Just sayin'.

c.d.

[Natalie Severn]

You can say that c.d. but there is a serious observation here by Ally---well its beyond serious its about the tragedy of the lives he destroyed with less compunction than swatting a fly. Ally is doing her level best here to get this across. Zodiac began the thread writing out the roll call of devastation - the scope of the holocaust of Sutcliffe"s crimes against humanity and with her outrage at the affrontary of his attempt to get out of jail "early".Its worth re-reading the first few pages to understand how the discussion developed and especially in the light of any sanctimonious clap trap about him disfiguring this thread.
You are either with Zodiac on this or against her---you cannot sit on the fence---its like saying you have to treat Hitler and his henchmen with compassion because they were all human and therefore had rights.Well tell that to the 6,000,000 who perished in his concentration camps.In fact there was no
compassion---not at the Nuremberg War Trials or years later towards Eichmann.They were all executed---and good riddance.

[c.d.]

Hi Natalie,

Well go at it then with gloves off. It's a sad day when I have to be the voice of reason.

c.d.

[protohistorian]

I came to take this thread to Harrison, Barber,and Co., but it appears I am early. Carry on. Dave

[mariab]

I'm so sorry for your loss, Zodiac

I deeply apologize if my post ends up in restarting this thread when all of you wish to be done and over with the debate on capital punishment and “human dignity“, but I just got aware of this thread, and, if I'm getting it right, it appears that Zodiac was acquainted with someone murdered by Sutcliffe, and this lady's daughter committed suicide in 2007? Zodiac, I can't describe how sad and revolted this makes me feel, and I admire even more the way you cope with this, your intact openness to the world, and your amazing sense of humor (which has had me rolling on the floor in hysterical laughter on many occasions).
As for Sutcliffe, besides the exorbitant cost on taxpayers money that his appeal for release is costing, please don't worry about this: Obviously it will lead to nowhere, besides the obvious media attention, and some additional attention to Sutcliffe while in custody. I've heard that he's been attacked by fellow prisoners twice (Dahmer-like). Who knows if this latest development, which has irritated a hell of a lot of people, won't bring out a little bit of additional abuse in the near future? One thing is crystal clear, Sutcliffe, like many other such murderers before him, is scared sh*tless when it comes to his own safety. Let him spend the rest of his (very uneventful) life in such a fear!


Fisherman, I understand where you're coming from with your “Kantian“ approach (and by the way I've read almost all of Kant, but I prefer and most deeply admire the writings of earlier human rights “activist“ Cesare Beccaria when it comes to human dignity under imprisonment), but for crimes such as the ones committed by Sutcliffe, your pragmatic approach is a little too abstract. And it was a faux pas to mention the victim's death in the same sentence as Sutcliffe's presumed “human dignity“.
I'm not pro capital punishment like the Yankees, but in cases like this, it's tempting. It would be easier for all if Sutcliffe had gone on trial in Texas instead of Yorkshire!

[cappuccina]

Ignoring all of the adolescent as well as the self-righteous crap on here, and going back to the first page of this discussion, Sutliffe should get no quarter, no favors or privileges, period. He needs to die in prison, and be "buried out back"....end of discussion.

[Fisherman]

"People don' t need to make inference in what I write. If I think you are a liar, I'll call you a liar. What I think you are is smug."

You, Ally, point me out as being sanctimonious. You very clearly infer that my stance aims to point me out as ”holier-than-thou”, and to suggest that this is what lies behind my convictions is to lie, nothing more, nothing less. But it is very clear to me that this stance, which I share with millions and millions of people, not least the people I luckily live and associate with daily, is something that nags you so badly that you cannot abide it. Therefore, you somehow think you are at liberty to first post that I am welcome to my stance, and then follow that up with slandering me for it. It is a strange way to debate.

It would seem, Ally, that you are prepared to call everybody who is not ready to join the torch- and pitchfork brigade liars; people who are arguing one thing against better knowledge - yours. I have seen and heard many people who have been ready to go to ridiculous lengths to try and press a point, but this is something new to me.

”I waited before I made my reply, assuming you were in the process of writing a reply to zodiac, but when I checked Who's online, found that you were in fact not doing so and made my reply, at which point, much later, you decide to respond to her.”

Shame on you, Ally, that is all I can say. You do not need to check any Who´s online facilities, there are other things that would be much more needy to check on in your case!
When I wrote my answer to Zodiac, I had not seen your post. Period. And if I had, I would have written the exact same thing.
I do not have to defend myself against a moronic accusation like this, but if you have not noticed yourself, Ally, them ”Who´s online” buttons sometimes are not lit up even as you post. Only yesterday, my latest post was lit up as I was on the boards, whereas my former posts above it, were not. I may add that inbetween your own posts yeaterday, Ally, your button was not lit. Perhaps you were not online all the time, and then that would explain it. If you were, though, then that should be food for thought. Whichever way, in the fourteen minutes – that you describe as ”much later” - that passed between our posts, I was writing my post to Zodiac.

Without a doubt, this will have to be the weirdest thread I have ever participated in on these boards. I make the point that I firmly believe that Peter Sutcliffe should stay in jail for his offenses, but I do not think that society or enterprising members of it have the right to inflict physical harm on him or kill him. This, I would have thought, would be a perfectly reasonable stance to hold, a stance that I know that I share with a very large part of the world´s population.

A number of pages further down the line, I find myself slandered, pointed out as a liar, falsely accused of having responded to posts out of cowardness instead of conviction and castigated for having hurt peoples feelings because I refuse to convert to executionism.

Is this for real? Compared to this scenario, Kafka wrote comedies!
Is this topic really so inflamed that no serious discussion can be held in connection with it? Are my wiews really fit for nothing but a witches stake? Have we come no further than this?
If so, then that is deeply deplorable.

As for my own participation on the thread, it stops here and now. I think I have made my wiew perfectly clear, and I stand by it. I have presented my arguments, and I have answered all the relevant questions that have been asked. It seems that all that now remains is an unbecoming collection of slander and lies and an ongoing invitation to wrestle in dung.

Thanks, but no thanks. I prefer to look forward to meeting you on other, less inflamed threads in the future, and thus regain my faith in dealing with rational people.

The best to all of you,
Fisherman

[Ally]

You, Ally, point me out as being sanctimonious. You very clearly infer that my stance aims to point me out as ”holier-than-thou”, and to suggest that this is what lies behind my convictions is to lie, nothing more, nothing less. But it is very clear to me that this stance, which I share with millions and millions of people, not least the people I luckily live and associate with daily, is something that nags you so badly that you cannot abide it. Therefore, you somehow think you are at liberty to first post that I am welcome to my stance, and then follow that up with slandering me for it. It is a strange way to debate.

It would seem, Ally, that you are prepared to call everybody who is not ready to join the torch- and pitchfork brigade liars; people who are arguing one thing against better knowledge - yours. I have seen and heard many people who have been ready to go to ridiculous lengths to try and press a point, but this is something new to me.

You post the words slander and lies so often, I have to wonder if you actually know what they mean. I have not called you a liar. I have not slandered you. I have given my opinion of your post and your stance, just as you have felt perfectly free to give yours of me and mine. So if I have slandered and lied about you, then you have done the exact same thing. No where did I ever call you a liar, and no where have I ever slandered you. Your hysterical use of these terms, and your bent as the persecuted prima dona prove you are no longer even attempting rational discussion, and are having a hissy. So I agree it's time to end this. It is clear, you didn't even bother to read my post or my argument, because your response had absolutely nothing to do with anything I wrote, or anything I claimed, but was one weird tangent after another. It is clear you aren't capable of gleaning the meaning anymore, so it would be a waste of my time to point out the many flaws in what you wrote above.

Ta.

[Natalie Severn]

You should feel privileged that Ally is actually prepared to have such a debate with you about Sutcliffe, Fisherman.There are many women"s groups who wouldnt even give you the time of day to be pontificating on these attacks on women----would object to you even commenting on this series of horrific murders on thirteen women by a male serial killer.His victims were all women . So bugger off,what do you know about male violence and rape!