October 11, 2018

“Entitled” British child-killer sues state for “unfair” jail sentence

David MenziesMission Specialist

A child-killer in Britain is suing the Ministry of Justice for 1 million pounds, claiming it’s unfair that he must languish in prison for so long.


Back in 1981, twelve year old Karl Doyle battered and strangled John Martin McLean, who was just 8. He was convicted of murder but was released in 1990, just nine years after his heinous act.

Alas, not only is Doyle a monster, he’s also a moron because after getting early release, he found himself back behind bars in 2005 for committing a petrol bomb attack, this time getting a prison sentence of three years and four months.

Doyle is shocked that he hasn’t seen the light of day yet. Surely in his estimation, if he only did nine years for murdering a child, a petrol bomb attack is worth, what, maybe three weeks?

So he’s moving ahead with Plan B and suing the Ministry of Justice, noting in his statement of claim that his sentence is “manifestly excessive (and) unjust.”

Such entitlement.

But by keeping him in prison, could it be that the justice system is course-correcting itself for a very bad decision it made in 1990 when this thug was first released?

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2018-10-12 03:27:50 -0400
I think he mistakenly thought he was in Canada in which case that would be an unusually long sentence.
commented 2018-10-12 03:26:22 -0400
Keith Barnes plus he is too dumb to survive.
commented 2018-10-12 01:15:17 -0400
At least he’d get a degree in psychology and then be released into society to really understand human nature.
commented 2018-10-12 01:14:10 -0400
I’m surprised he didn’t ask to be relocated to Canada. He’d probably get some $$ here.
commented 2018-10-11 21:31:14 -0400
JANET commented 1 hour ago
Re: Keith Barnes commenting that Justin Trudeau thinks euthanasia is acceptable, our medical community thinks it is okay for children to be euthanized, and without the parents involvement in the decision.
________________________________________________________________________________
Just like their German Socialist pals before them:

“Hitler and his circle believed that before implementing euthanasia for handicapped adults it should be tried on those whose disappearance would be less noticed by the public. It was thought best to start with the most helpless, namely babies and infants. Hence inquiries of parents of crippled newborns were given particular recognition…

The killing of the Knauer baby served as a pretext for the implementation of medical killing for handicapped childfen. Shortly after the baby’s death Hitler authorized Dr. Brandt and Philip Bouhler to kill in similar cases without asking for his authorization.

To prevent the cases becoming publicly known and alarming the population the Führer “ordered all petitions for granting of mercy killings to be left to the sole competence of the Reich Com m i t t e e group of the Führer’s Chancellery as a secret matter. To avoid the opposition of those parents who were against medical killing and to placate other parents who agreed or were impartial to it the Reich committee decided to disguise a child’s killing in such a way that the infant had fallen prey to some disease, such as influenza or pneumonia.”

https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/ftp03/MQ51380.pdf

Socialists don’t change.
commented 2018-10-11 21:00:45 -0400
If he gets a million, Tommy Robinson should get 10 million for suffering at the hands of the justice system.
commented 2018-10-11 19:51:33 -0400
Re: Keith Barnes commenting that Justin Trudeau thinks euthanasia is acceptable, our medical community thinks it is okay for children to be euthanized, and without the parents involvement in the decision.
-————————————————————————————————-
https://www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/medical-assistance-in-dying

Principal author(s)

Dawn Davies; Canadian Paediatric Society, Bioethics Committee

Paediatr Child Health 2018, 23(2):125–130
Abstract

The Supreme Court decision in Carter v. Canada (2015) has led to changes to the Canadian Criminal Code, such that physician-assisted death is now a legal option for consenting adult patients who have a ‘grievous and irremediable medical condition’ that causes ‘enduring’ and ‘intolerable’ suffering. In June 2016, Bill C-14 was enacted, allowing medical assistance in dying (MAID) for an eligible adult whose death is ‘reasonably foreseeable’. An independent report on the status of ‘mature minors’ (who are currently excluded under federal legislation), with focus on their potential eligibility for MAID, was required by the 2016 Act and is expected to be presented to Parliament by December 2018. Ensuring that newborns, children and youth receive the highest possible standard of care as they are dying is a privilege and a responsibility for physicians and allied professionals. Bringing a thoughtful, respectful and personal approach to every end-of-life situation is an essential and evolving duty of care, and the process should meet each patient’s (and family’s) unique social, cultural and spiritual needs. This statement describes the current Canadian legal and medical context of MAID and articulates a paediatric perspective that has emerged from—and been informed by—the broad, structured consultation process unfolding in Canada and elsewhere. Although ‘mature minors’ are the only youth currently mandated for further legislative consideration in Canada, the need to examine requests for and attitudes around MAID for minors of all ages remains compelling for two main reasons: Canadian health care professionals are increasingly being approached by the parents of ‘never-competent’ infants and children, including those too young to make a reasoned decision, and by youth themselves, to discuss MAID-related issues. Results from a Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program (CPSP) survey, discussed below, indicate that parents raise such questions with paediatricians more often than do minors. The discussion of MAID policy in Canada has been framed as much by the issue and context of suffering as by considerations of autonomy. While current legislation clearly prohibits MAID for incapable persons at the request of any other person, it is possible that parents may request MAID on behalf of their dying child.

Keywords: Euthanasia; MAID; Mature minors; Medical assistance in dying.
-————————————————————————————————-
Start watching around 21.00 on this site
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3AZCn_6RAc
where it is queried about whether there are situations when the request, from a child, for euthanasia, should be kept secret from the parents and other family members. YES, I DID NOT READ THAT INCORRECTLY.
-——————————————————————————————————
One concern I have about all of these laws that Trudeau is passing, and things he possibly push through in the near future…. WHEN they will start implementing these laws. Many bills have been passed, and we’ve become angry. But not much is happening on charging people under these laws. So, they kind of get rug-swept and we stop worrying about one law and worry about the next one to pass. But, who is to say that at some point in the near future, all of a sudden, these laws start being prosecuted, all at the same time. This can change our country horribly and completely. By then it will be too late, because we stood back while all of this stuff happened, they’ll have the law on their side…the laws we let happen.
commented 2018-10-11 14:05:41 -0400
Oop’s wrong Country.
commented 2018-10-11 14:00:01 -0400
Justin Trudeau stated that Euthanizing is completely acceptable. So Euthanize him. He will not be missed.
commented 2018-10-11 13:59:01 -0400
If he had converted to Islam & claimed discrimination he’d likely be out by now. The fact that he claims Muslims are persecuting him will likely prove his undoing. This is the UK in 2018 after all, where justice happens by accident when it happens at all.
From The Ground Up