Crime and criminals

[DaveR]

If Tunney was also under the impression that he had won the Lottery and bought a new Car perhaps he needs some treatment rather than encarceration!

How can you be sure that he would not commit further offences, though? The thing about jail is that it physically prevents further offences being committed. If this guy is so nuts that he has no grasp on reality, then who can say what he is capable of?

[Hugo]

I was watching TV the other day and they were discussing the Benefit capping.   
They had done a survey and of the people surveyed, 70 per cent agreed with the Benefit cap.
30 per cent disagreed but out of the minority of 30 per cent there were 33 per cent who disagreed only because they thought that the Benefit cap was too high
After all £26K tax free for doing nothing at all seems unfair to those working for a living.

[Yorkie]

How can you be sure that he would not commit further offences, though? The thing about jail is that it physically prevents further offences being committed. If this guy is so nuts that he has no grasp on reality, then who can say what he is capable of?

Quite agree with you, no one knows what he, or anyone, is capable of.  But without treatment he could get worse, and prison is not the best place to try to reform anyone.  In fact it is the one place where his lewd acts could get worse.

There are secure units where treatment for many disorders are dealt with, maybe one of those would be the best solution.  Certainly treatment at home is out of the question.
 

[Linda]

If Tunney was also under the impression that he had won the Lottery and bought a new Car perhaps he needs some treatment rather than encarceration!

How can you be sure that he would not commit further offences, though? The thing about jail is that it physically prevents further offences being committed. If this guy is so nuts that he has no grasp on reality, then who can say what he is capable of?

I wonder if he still has his driving licence Hmm! deranged and driving a bit of a worry as well. As far as the man being an ex soldier and possibly saving many lives etc I disagree with the sentiment in that one im afraid.  I for one saved my child from drowning, my friends daughter from a terrible asthma attack, my husband during a heart attack many other (potentially life saving)incidents as we all do in our day to day lives, but if i committed an assault or otherwise i would expect to be punished in some way. Im not saying this person
shouldnt be treated but im very concerned that he is free to wander and possibly target even younger folk. Too many kids have suffered needlessly when the authorities were aware of these 'Risky' people. A few major ones in this area alone. I may get emotional at times when i hear sad cases involving children and i am not just attacking this case, my thoughts are in general that these sometimes feeble sentences could be a green light to the perpetrators. Example uncovering all this terrible stuff in local childrens homes.

[born2run]

I was watching TV the other day and they were discussing the Benefit capping.   
They had done a survey and of the people surveyed, 70 per cent agreed with the Benefit cap.
30 per cent disagreed but out of the minority of 30 per cent there were 33 per cent who disagreed only because they thought that the Benefit cap was too high
After all £26K tax free for doing nothing at all seems unfair to those working for a living.

BUT....most of that 26k is not going to the benefit claimant but to rich landlords.

[Yorkie]

BUT....most of that 26k is not going to the benefit claimant but to rich landlords.

We're not suffering another bout of Rachmanism are we?   

Most Claimants are probably in Social Housing. 

[DaveR]

I was watching TV the other day and they were discussing the Benefit capping.   
They had done a survey and of the people surveyed, 70 per cent agreed with the Benefit cap.
30 per cent disagreed but out of the minority of 30 per cent there were 33 per cent who disagreed only because they thought that the Benefit cap was too high
After all £26K tax free for doing nothing at all seems unfair to those working for a living.

BUT....most of that 26k is not going to the benefit claimant but to rich landlords.

How is that any different to the rest of of us have to pay rent or a mortgage?

[FatAndy]

But we know so little about his 'victims', other than the fact they were 'teenagers'.  They might have been two 17 year olds. Would they have been 'victims'?

The 'victims' were 17 and 15 according the NWWN.  To be honest the thing that surprises me the most is that they didn't take the £250 and then do a runner.  It's not like he could have sued them for not posting the photos online.

[DaveR]

But we know so little about his 'victims', other than the fact they were 'teenagers'.  They might have been two 17 year olds. Would they have been 'victims'?

The 'victims' were 17 and 15 according the NWWN.  To be honest the thing that surprises me the most is that they didn't take the £250 and then do a runner.  It's not like he could have sued them for not posting the photos online.

I don't think the £250 existed anywhere other than in Tunney's mind, mate. 

[Big Alan]

Ian, 2 words, James Bulger. Now do one and go and hug a tree. Your posts on this issue make me fume lad

[DaveR]

Some more insight into this case from the NWWN today. Disturbingly, it seems that he twice asked the boys to get into his car before they ran off and found a policeman. 

[DaveR]

There was a strange chap called John Tunney,
Who offered two children some money,
To 'relieve' in his car,
Wearing only a bra,
I hope no one thinks that is funny?   

 WWW WWW WWW

I think we can better that....

There was an odd bloke called Tunney,
who thought it would be quite funny,
to sit in his car, wearing only a bra,
showing youngsters his todge for money.

No? 

[DaveR]

Police arrest 72-year-old man as part of historic child abuse investigation
18 Jul 2013 11:07

The Wrexham man is being questioned on suspicion of physical assaults against eight youngsters between 1963 and 1992

A 72-year-old man from Wrexham has been arrested by detectives investigating allegations of a historic paedophile ring in North Wales.

Detectives from Operation Pallial, launched last November, are looking into 140 allegations relating to 18 care homes between 1963 and 1992.

He is being questioned on suspicion of physical assaults against eight youngsters, said the Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca).

The assaults, on five boys and three girls, are alleged to have taken place between 1974 and 1986 when they were aged between 10 and 15.

A Soca spokeswoman said: “The 72-year-old man will be taken to a police station in North Wales where he will be interviewed.”

Operation Pallial is led by Keith Bristow, director general of the National Crime Agency (NCA), and is looking  into recent allegations of historical abuse in the care system in North Wales. This is the third arrest in the operation.

A man from Ipswich was held on April 23 accused of “a number of serious sexual offences against a number of individuals”, and was bailed until the end of July.

A 62-year-old man from Leicester was detained on June 26 and was bailed until the end of September.

A report published in April, which outlined phase one of the inquiry, revealed that the alleged victims in the case were aged between seven and 19.

The report said 84 people - 75 male and nine female - had been named by complainants. Of these, 16 were named by more than one alleged victim and 10 might now be dead.

The NCA was selected at the request of North Wales Police to ensure the inquiry’s independence.

It was set up to re-examine claims of sex crimes and look again at the original police investigations into abuse at care homes in North Wales.

In 2000 the Waterhouse Inquiry was established to study claims linked to homes in the former council areas of Gwynedd and Clwyd since 1974.

Following Waterhouse, eight people were prosecuted and seven were convicted.

[Hugo]

I was watching TV the other day and they were discussing the Benefit capping.   
They had done a survey and of the people surveyed, 70 per cent agreed with the Benefit cap.
30 per cent disagreed but out of the minority of 30 per cent there were 33 per cent who disagreed only because they thought that the Benefit cap was too high
After all £26K tax free for doing nothing at all seems unfair to those working for a living.

BUT....most of that 26k is not going to the benefit claimant but to rich landlords.

How is that any different to the rest of of us have to pay rent or a mortgage?

Exactly,  I'm unable to comprehend how the minority can justify why benefits shouldn't be capped.  Perhaps anyone who is against capping benefits could explain their reason, because at the moment I just can't see how they can justify their view.

[Fester]

Nope, my limerick was better.... before you MODERATED it!