Landlady ordered to pay damages to serial rapist for clearing his flat after arrest

Markyt

Cat695 wrote: »

Its only since we've had these so called rights that crime has risen....amazing FACT that eh?

True. There was no crime before we signed up to the European human rights treaty.

No, wait. There was no crime before we founded a Parliament to represent the rights of ordinary people.

Err, hang on. There was no crime before we wrote the Magna Carta.

Or is it just 100% FACT you haven't a clue?

Cat695

Markyt wrote: »

True. There was no crime before we signed up to the European human rights treaty.

No, wait. There was no crime before we founded a Parliament to represent the rights of ordinary people.

Err, hang on. There was no crime before we wrote the Magna Carta.

Or is it just 100% FACT you haven't a clue?

Jesus Another Humans rights moron.....so where did i say there was NO crime???

Markyt

Cat695 wrote: »

Jesus Another Humans rights moron.....so where did i say there was NO crime???

Where did I say you did?

Cat695

house184 wrote: »

One wonders what Cat695 would say if he is later found not guilty on an appeal.

What is wrong with you people.....if he was found not guilty then he can have he life back...he'll get a massive pay out and live where ever he wants!

So do you believe a criminal is still a criminal once he's served his sentenced??? or forever a criminal because i can bet you wouldn't shake the hand of the said rapist (if found not guilty later on) and offer him a place at your table

No because idiots like you are two faced. you want all the rights in the world till it works against you.

I am actually amazed that you are backing a rapist than backing a LL(Female one at that) who put a rapists stuff in storage...not burned it...not sold it....not even chucked it in the skip....but put it in storage!!

You should go have a long look in the mirror and think about what your saying

Cat695

Markyt wrote: »

Where did I say you did?

True. There was NO crime before we signed up to the European human rights treaty.

No, wait. There was NO crime before we founded a Parliament to represent the rights of ordinary people.

Err, hang on. There was NO crime before we wrote the Magna Carta.

Or is it just 100% FACT you haven't a clue?


MADE THEM BIGGER FOR YOU JUST INCASE YOU ARE BLIND AS WELL AS STUPID

Markyt

Cat695 wrote: »

I am actually amazed that you are backing a rapist than backing a LL

I'm amazed you can read that into it.

1) A criminal has been convicted for rape

2) A LL has been convicted for doing something against the law.

It is not a question of backing one over the other.

It is a matter of saying that the LL also broke the law.

How simple does it need to be put before you get it?

Markyt

Cat695 wrote: »

True. There was NO crime before we signed up to the European human rights treaty.

No, wait. There was NO crime before we founded a Parliament to represent the rights of ordinary people.

Err, hang on. There was NO crime before we wrote the Magna Carta.

Or is it just 100% FACT you haven't a clue?


MADE THEM BIGGER FOR YOU JUST INCASE YOU ARE BLIND AS WELL AS STUPID

And again I ask, where have I attributed the zero crime part to you?

paddy's_mum

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the Human Rights legislation, or the views of bleeding heart liberals, or the crime statistics of the UK - has Cope, his lawyers, the CPS or virtually anybody thought about this FACT?

This appalling attack (described by the Judge as an eight hour ordeal) took place in the subject property.

Might it be that the landlord was so revolted and repulsed by what had taken place in a property she owns and presumably rented out in good faith, that she has acted out of gut instinct?

Clean the place, burn every item within it, try to sleep nights, and to hell with what the law says. How human is that?

Is it so hard to possibly give her the credit for having tried to deal with her property being tied up, perhaps for weeks on end with Police -Crime Scene - Do not enter tapes, trying to find ways to ascertain her own position while the Data Protection Act actively works against her?

I do believe wholeheartedly in the rule of law. However, I also believe that there comes a time when commonsense over-rides one's desire to obey the law (please note that I did not say "when my greed or my desire to commit crimes") and my feeling is that the CPS were entirely mistaken to fund (at our expense, mark you!) this legal attack upon a woman whom I assume was just trying to make the best of a vomit making and obnoxious situation. (My assumption, before I am leapt on!)

I said it before and I will say it again. Lead me to the details of this landlord's fighting fund!

paddy's mum - a woman and the mother of daughters, but that's just by the way, of course!

Cat695

Markyt wrote: »

I'm amazed you can read that into it.

1) A criminal has been convicted for rape

2) A LL has been convicted for doing something against the law.

It is not a question of backing one over the other.

It is a matter of saying that the LL also broke the law.

How simple does it need to be put before you get it?

I'll get it when someone explains to me how its right that a convicted rapists gets paid money for having his (now useless) belongings put into storage yet HIS victim gets nothing from him (though will recieve a payment from the govement)

And for your info he was also convicted of rape in the 70's....but thats ok because his LL did a far worse thing by moving his stuff into storage.

Incisor

Cat695_(using_his_Human_Rights) wrote: »

Jesus Another Humans rights moron.....so where did i say there was NO crime???

If you don't agree with human rights, then don't post here, because I assure you, your rights to free speech are part of your human rights. If you continue to post your here but hold that human rights are only for morons to support, you are a hypocrite.