Blog powered by Typepad

« Pity the poor 'Paddies'! | Main | Now that's funny! »

Friday, 29 June 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"The fact that he spent 35 years in jail indicates that he wasn't even very good at thieving!"

I know you're only trying to ease the tedium of another quiet Friday afternoon by attempting so start yet another feud, David, but... Someone who can't be arsed to put a name into Google and see what comes up should be handing out 'stupid blogger' awards.

Before you say it - "should not".

I would take legal advice from JHL who has a law degree from the open university. I would not buy a used car from yourself.

Sorry, 'NIB', you're quite right; having followed your advice I 'Googled' him and realised that I should change my sentence:

"The fact that he spent 35 years in jail indicates that he wasn't even very good at thieving!"
to read
"The fact that he spent 35 years in jail indicates that he wasn't even very good at thieving - *or murdering*!"

This is what I read from an ex-con writing for 'The Guardian' (No, I agree, you couldn't make it up!):
"Hirst was sent to prison for life after being convicted of the manslaughter of his landlady, Bronia Burton, in 1979. She had asked Hirst to bring in some coal. Hirst felt he was being "nagged". He says this caused him to "snap" and attack Burton, hitting her several times on the head with the blunt end of an axe taken from the garden shed."

Quite why that would alter my overall assessment of him in any other direction than downwards is beyond my understanding - but I'm sure you will tell me.

'ZinZin', there is no need to illustrate your lack of judgement in public, it only makes is more membarrassed for you.

Don't be membarrassed Dave on my part, you racist twat. Piss poor grammer as well.

Don't take the Law and order line with me. You have no sympathy for the victims of crime as your snide posts tauting a victim of cyber stalking prove.

JHL may have been a bad boy in the past. He got 15 years for manslaughter and served 25. Despite this Dave he is a far better human being than yourself. Takes some doing that a man convicted of manslaughter contains more moral fibre than yourself.

No, 'ZinZin', he got 25 years with chances of release from 15 years onwards which he failed to get - I wonder why?

However, I will grant him the virtue of not skimping a job. He hit his landlady (I wonder how old she was?), "several times". Well, if a murder is worth doing, it's worth doing well, don't you think? Personally, I would have hung him by the neck.

The apparent fact that you, 'ZinZin', consider calling people names a worse crime that battering them to death with the blunt end of an axe, says more about you and your values than me and mine.

He was done for manslaughter, he did his time, he showed remorse, he is in short rehabilitated and no longer a threat to society. He served an extra ten years because he challenged the prison authorities.

My values are forgiveness of sins and i don't bully people. I don't sneer at victims of crime such as Rachel North or blame them for being victims.

Dave you are a nasty person as you lack empathy and sympathy for others. Like a lot of psychopaths do.

JHL is brighter than you and a better human being than you. You know this as well and its pisses you off.

'ZinZin', the only reason I do not flatten you with, metaphorically speaking, the blunt end of an axe, is because you are a young man and as such should be permitted to spew up nonsense until you learn from experience - as I did!

For example, the way language is used and abused. 'Murder' is a harsh word, is it not? And 'manslaughter' sounds somewhat mitigated, you know, like accidentally running some one over. But of course, in the real world, outside that Alice-in-Wonderland fantasia of legalisms and court jurisprudence, a *man* who *repeatedly* slams the blunt end of an axe into the head of a *woman*, on the grounds that he "snapped", is a murderer. Were I a preachy type, I would say to him, something like, "you are a nasty person as you lack empathy and sympathy for others. Like a lot of psychopaths do" - now where have I read that recently?

Thing is, would I be wrong?

Dave you got so upset with chairwoman for disagreeing with you over my Madeline McCann post that you wished cancer upon her. Not very mature is it or nice for that matter. You have not apologiseed either.

"I have to confess that it is not easy, given my nasty nature, to feel much in the way of pity for the misbegotten inhabitants of Northern Ireland." Your words not mine but are they the words of a psychopath?

Don't get on the soapbox about the Criminal justice system being soft on murder. Your soft on cyber stalking. Then again you are a bully.

Where *would* you be without me, eh David?

I think that the stupidest blogger has to be you Duff. In prison we used to say shoot our duff. But, there's no spunk in you. Or we might say a battery was duff because it had no life in it.

I suspect that you are trying to be provocative to drum up traffic to get your stats up.

I only came over here because I noted that zin zin had posted that you are a bully. I am too busy to teach you a lesson, besides I don't think that you could afford my consultancy fees.

By Jove, this is all getting rather nasty...............Just what I like to see!

Zinzin is a formidable competitor, but my money's on The Duff. The man is quite relentless.

Where do I place my bets?

What are we betting on IM? Which one curls up and dies of embarrasment first?

If anyone is left standing iI refer you to the post above entitled "The 'ZitZit' on the arse of the stupidest blogger in the west".

The comments to this entry are closed.