Wednesday, June 08, 2011

How appropriate

According to Hugh Muir at The Guardian, the reason that Santre Sanchez Gayle agreed to shoot a woman he'd never met for £200 was because he lived in poverty.

Riiiight.

To make his case, Muir drafts in some professional bleeding heart... [Emphasis mine.]
The core problem is poverty, says India, chair of the charity Leap, which works to help people out of poverty. "These are two disadvantaged, vulnerable groups, one leveraging the other. But the issue is deprivation. That £200 to him was same as £2m to someone else."

Which is a coincidence, really, because people appear to value their own lives at roughly £2 million.

Gayle, on the other hand, viewed other people's lives as being worth a mere £200.

It seems to me that the "core problem" is that Santre "Riot"* Gayle is an unpleasant little bastard who—in valuing the lives of others so low—reveals that he is a severe danger to society and should never be let out of prison.

So, you know what?

Fuck him.

* You would have thought that his nickname might have given people a clue here...

17 comments:

Chalcedon said...

Er...........no thanks. I'd rather hang him instead.

The Pedant-General said...

"says India, chair of the charity Leap, "

Talking of which, we haven't heard from FakeCharities for a while.

just saying.

Anonymous said...

Well he might have been "Well 'ard" in his school, but he'll be lags bitch / Tom by the end of the week

JuliaM said...

That ghastly article could almost be a 'Daily Mash' style parody of the typical bleeding heart progressive.

Apart from the fact that it isn't funny of course.

JuliaM said...

I did like her bringing 'poverty' into it, as if poor starving Santre had desperately needed the £200 to buy food and medicine for his ageing mother.

In fact, he had more down-to-earth needs in mind:

"Santre Sanchez Gayle, 15, was paid just £200 to carry out the murder of Gulistan Subasi – a fee he used to buy a gold Dolce and Gabbana beanie hat."

Snowdon said...

Is this twunt suggesting that it's OK to murder someone for £2 million?

Anonymous said...

The core problem is that we're meant to be a First World nation and since 1997 we've adopted whatever flotsam the Third World throws up.

We cannot pretend to be a civilised nation when the policy espoused by all parties is to flood the country with feral foreigners who've been raised in and trained for a life of criminality.

bnzss said...

Well, marginal utility and all that.

john b said...

Er...........no thanks. I'd rather hang him instead.

Because murdering children is *definitely* one of the core functions of a miniarchist state. Wanker.

Anonymous said...

If capital punishment is "murder", then imprisonment is kidnapping and fines are theft.

You're aware, John B, that you're effectively arguing for an end to all criminal justice. You fucking tool.

JuliaM said...

Love the use of the supposedly discussion-ending term 'children', conjuring up an Oliver Twist style moppet.

A glance at the mugshot reveals just what sort of 'child' we're talking about...

Roue le Jour said...

I'd heard two hundred was the going rate, set by Eastern European gangsters. Interesting to have that confirmed. To show how integrated they are I believe it's three for a monkey.

john b said...

You're aware, John B, that you're effectively arguing for an end to all criminal justice. You fucking tool.

Erm, no. If a child is proven to have murdered someone for cash, then of course we need to protect society from the child in question. That's why I like the English law concept of a life sentence - *unless they're safe to release, they don't get released, ever, and that's the law*.

But there's a difference (highlighted by all physiological studies into brain development) between someone who does unspeakable things at 15 and someone who does unspeakable things at 40. 15-year-olds don't have brains that work properly as adult brains; that's why, for example, we don't trust them to make the decision as to whether or not they should fuck somebody or have a beer, never mind whether they should forfeit their lives for doing something terrible.

I'm opposed to the death penalty in general, for a range of reasons, but I'd find it hard to become terribly upset about a grown-up getting hanged for bribing a daft kid the price of a pair of sunglasses to murder his wife. I'd be quite happy to debate/spend time with/generally respect someone who thinks that the dude in question deserved to die.

But someone who thinks the kid deserves to be hanged right off the bat, rather than jailed until he grows up and let out if he turns into a decent human being, is beneath contempt.

PPS said...

Surely he could have flogged the gun and earned more than £200?

Andrew Zalotocky said...

Snowdon, that is exactly what Muir appears to say but I doubt that's what he really believes. It's more likely that he and India automatically went for the standard Guardianista line that poverty explains everything without bothering to think through the logical consequences of their position.

JuliaM said...

"But there's a difference (highlighted by all physiological studies into brain development) between someone who does unspeakable things at 15 and someone who does unspeakable things at 40. "

And thus, by excusing children* on the basis that 'science says their brains are wired differently!', you guarantee an inexhaustible supply of patsies for the bad guys.

Well done, have a cookie.

* for which, read 'soulless street rats'

Anonymous said...

Because murdering children is *definitely* one of the core functions of a miniarchist state. Wanker.

I don't know about the minarchist state but since the Abortion Act 1967, murdering children has been a function of our socialist state.

But it isn't murder, because the brain of an unborn baby is wired up differently, to the extent that the unborn baby isn't even human.