End of the day I can't see any possible reason why this scum bag should be able to choose where he ends his days. Some people seem to have missed the point. This topic is on Ian Brady so I don't see why people are talking about our judicial system in general.
MRX.....read my opening thread in this post. The whole point is he should not have been granted this tribunal.......the law worked, but it is wrong.
Not quite sure what your talking about.... I am simply disagreeing on the point that he should have had the choice of a tribunal ( I know what the outcome was). The point I've made about our judicial system is in reference to posts made above about other countries and our system in general etc when we are talking about Ian Brady. Can I suggest that if you're going to try and belittle a fellow tyke on a public forum then make sure you know what your talking about. I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it.
I could carry on and try making you look like an even bigger fool but you seem to be doing a good enough job on you own. Careful with the head banging though, you might knock some sense in.
We either accept that people have human rights and follow due process or we don't and we allow the state to choose arbitrarily who 'deserves' to be treated humanely and who doesn't. If we say that Brady has no human rights because he has killed then we open the door to saying other people have on human rights because they commit other crimes.. It's not on and it's dangerous for a democracy. It's nothing to do with the fact that Brady is a killer and is an evil +++++++ it's to do with allowing due process to take place for an individual to prove that justice works. Whether justice is flawed or not is an entirely different matter... Brady should have been allowed his appeal and it should have been treated fairly without political interference.
Luckily we have a political system which guards against the Tyranny of the majority, otherwise we'd be back to ancient Rome and feeding folk to the Lions.