There is only one practical way any good can come from AF and DF and what they did. I can assure you that this way is not to sing songs to them while wearing a jolly Festive jumper. I have no real issue with religion so long as they stay out of things like the prison service.
One glance at the website of ‘Sowing Seeds’ confirms that they people behind it are ideologues. They are also dogmatic since they hold fixed and firm beliefs that are resistant to facts, reason and evidence.
I’m not anti religion as such, but the idea that those two can be turned around by accepting as their ‘saviour’ a man who died at least 2,000 years ago doesn’t strike me as having any place in the prison service – formal or otherwise.
It would not surprise me if groups like that have some measure of influence of parole boards and the like. And they will obviously advocate for the offender since they are emotionally invested in thinking that their God can save this person. But since there is no hard evidence of any gods the most likely thing here is that these groups think sadists and paedophiles can be saved via something which is imaginary.
Maybe they do have the occasional ‘success’ story, someone that quit drinking with their support, someone that was homeless who got back on their feet. If they limited it to those sorts of things then that would be okay. Its when they start from this position of believing that monsters like them can be made ‘good’ that I object.
Its thinking like that which gets people hurt and children abused. I would assume those that run such places would probably be so immersed in their own belief that they really would leave them alone with pets or kids to prove their ideological point.
If they refused to they’d be hypocrites so they’d really have to if they believe their own basic principles.
I’m not even convinced that some of these Kumbaya tambourine shakers really understand the very religion they profess to be representatives of. My understanding of Jesus is not as this sort of gullible pacifist at all. If he wasn’t driving the bankers of the day out of temples armed with a whip he was telling Satan to take his lies and temptations and be gone. I’m pretty sure there’s something in the New Testament that states that those who hurt children should be drowned in the sea.
So in reality Jesus was pretty hard core and not this sandal wearing hipster that he has been rebranded as for a few decades.
You have to operate in the real World and not some dream World. I would fully expect groups like this to be won over by guys like them. They are desperate for recruits and who better to target than those at the bottom of the barrel? It becomes something of a co-dependency, the group relies on zero quality control in order to pull new people in and the offenders get to hide behind yet another mirage. It was only in January of this year that Frankish was peddling the line that he was a war veteran and one of the kindest people you will ever meet. Does he now want to sort of morph into some sort of god fearing individual who sings carols at Christmas and bangs a drum? Looks like it.
The pair of them are pathological liars who will tell naive fools whatever they want to hear. Naive idealogues are receptive to such lies as it boosts their own ego, it makes them feel good.
(Drumming his way to redemption)
The problem is that its not harmless. Their naiveté places themselves and others at some level of risk. This past year there have been a number of volunteers who have been murdered, raped and seriously injured at various refugee centres across Europe. There was another tragic murder and rape this very week. The reason why this occurs is that these volunteers often have a somewhat idealistic and not realistic view of what they are getting into. Even if their intentions are well meant they simply do not understand (or want to accept), that they are going to be operating among men who are often dangerous and with backgrounds that are a total mystery to all. Due to the almost idyllic view they have of their voluntary work they do not keep their guard up and eyes open as they should and tragedy ensues.
(How he sees his fictional stint in the army)
There are parole boards that decide whether extremely dangerous men and women can be allowed out again. But I don’t think it is too hard for them to dupe a parole board if they are smart about it. Stay out of trouble, pretend you’ve found god, say to the parole board how much you regret what you did … and it could be enough. Given that the repeat offender rate is as high as 70% I’d suggest that there are too many weak idealists in the system that are letting out too many too soon. And who loses when their weak idealism is proven wrong? Not these virtue signalling do gooders. The cost falls on you and your community, its your daughter, your wife, your child, your pet – that’s the price of letting clearly deranged and dangerous people simply walk around and among normal society.
(Artists Impression of the the ‘Deluded Do Gooder’. Bad knitwear appears mandatory)
Is it a price worth paying? I do not think it is and I do not believe its a gamble that should belong to a few select men and women. After all, who are these people to play Russian roulette with your safety and that of those you love? Are they prepared to be personally accountable when they get it wrong and they offend again?
Prison should almost exclusively be for certain types of crimes, abominations. I do think you could potentially turn a clever fraudster around. That is a different challenge entirely. If someone was a very good fraudster then what is their motive? Probably financial gain. So, if they happen to be very efficient at that why not give them the option – they either turn it around by working for an anti fraud team or they go to prison. For the first year they would do it for expenses only to prove their reliability. If they did well then absorb them into the fight against fraud.
Can you turn someone around who keeps finding himself in bother for fighting all the time? I think you can. What motivates them to fight? Its obviously not financial gain in this case. They may simply be the sort of males who like to challenge themselves physically against other men.
In the proper setting and context that doesn’t need to be a bad thing. If some of them think they can really fight then train them to fight in such a way that they can maybe make a living out of it as well as fill that desire they have to physically challenge other guys. They can be trained up as pro boxers, there is the armed forces, my thinking is not to harbour fantasy ideas that you can change the core nature of those examples – instead, what you are doing is almost working with the core behaviours but in a controlled form.
This may not work in every case but there are far too many people in prison who clearly are not a serious danger to anyone. There are people in prison for ‘hate speech’, which is really just another way of enshrining feelings into law. Its words.
People shouldn’t be in prison for Tweeting something deemed offensive. I don’t care what it is they write, it cannot possibly be as bad as doing what those brothers did and others like them. The only possible exception would be plausible death threats and any material already deemed illegal.
I’ve even shown that there are many people languishing in prison for non payment of parking fines or the TV licence. These things do occur, people really do prison time for such things.
There is a good % of the prison population who probably don’t need to be there. On the flip side there are all too many offenders who DO need to be there who aren’t.
This is a clear imbalance that anyone can see, even if they don’t like going through lots of legal jargon. Why not simply sort it then? Why not make space by releasing those whose crimes did not involve a physical victim or child abuse material and in their place we can start caging all these demented freaks and sadists?
Why doesn’t that make sense and why not simply aim to move toward that? How is it possible for these two scenarios to exist on the same day. In the first scenario a girl was sent to jail after running away from a restaurant without paying. She had clearly done this sort of thing before right enough, but is prison REALLY the best place for her? On the same day a guy called Andrew Picard walked free from court despite a police sting that discovered thousands of child and animal abuse downloads and file shares. I guess it helps when your dad is an top lawyer with offices in London and the US. I’d wager if Picard was running from the restaurant he’d never have seen prison.
With that being said Frankish and Frankish didn’t have a rich lawyer for a father and they still managed to weasel their way free. This is where your bleeding heart liberals would have come in. They will invent what they will refer to as “mitigating circumstances”. Mitigating circumstances are like a giant free pass that are most enjoyed by those who already have some level of history of being a demonic little bastard.
The worse you’ve been in the past the more you will be seen as a ‘victim’ in actual fact. If your history is as clean as a whistle then you will struggle to build any mitigating circumstances. They wont be able to create enough of a sob story around you so you would be more likely to go to prison.
This is again a peculiarity which much be addressed.
We waste the best legal minds and millions in this country on theatrical inquiries such as the Chilcot enquiry. It took years, cost over ten million, and we all knew that at the end no one would go to the Hague. In fact Blair has been sniffing around again.
It was utterly pointless. A complete and total charade.
Our Governments are always wasting the best legal minds and public funds on these obsessive enquiries that go nowhere.
I would much rather see those great legal minds and that capital used in a pragmatic way, on things that will lead somewhere and that would vastly improve our towns and cities. It would definitely improve our towns and cities if we began buying into a new legal culture of always locking up the blatantly twisted and dangerous. How can that possibly NOT be good? Its like ridding your body of an infection, right away it begins to heal once the infection is under control again.
I think a get tough stance also lifts national spirits.
The people feel frustrated and disempowered when they keep on seeing sickness and evil being treated with kid gloves. No wonder – it feels to them that evil gets a free pass.
If Britain took a hard line on this then I think it would unconsciously act as a fillip for the ordinary people as they could hold their head high in the knowledge that our country is fair but it comes down hard on those who commit acts that are a stain on our nation.
To NOT lock these people up is to knowingly put British people and their loved ones at risk.
That’s tantamount to treason.
The only ‘good’ that can ever come out of those brothers and what they did is that I believe it will finally and at long last be the catalyst to bring in a new dawn. A new order.