November 04, 2010

The killer Hirst weakens the cause of human rights

The remorseless killer John Hirst was been ripped apart on the Jeremy Vine Show. Which is a good thing. He, of course, will think differently about that. Just as he thinks differently about whether normal humans to feel remorse when you blugden an old lady to death, or whether remorse is just a middle class thing.

The recording is a car crash and will be used again and again by people that want to get rid of the whole of the ECHR. He compares killers, like him, not being able to vote is compared to Hitler’s genocide of the Jews. It is not comparable in the slightest degree. The right to life is a true human right, like the right to freedom of speech or freedom of conscience, and other ‘negative rights’. Voting is not a human right, it is a civil privilege, and because the ECHR mixed up these two Hirst’s actions have helped those that want the entire thing, including the real human rights, removed from the statute books.

The killer Hirst gloats over his victory. It is as if he has just won some complicated game in order to stick it to ‘the man’. He has a no idea of what his little victory might cost everybody else, but then he has spent his whole life not thinking of anything but himself. His is a life of taking from society and never giving anything back. He has never held down a job for long and spent most of his life leeching off of others: before he killed his old and infirm landlady as a petty thief, afterwards living at tax payer’s expense.

Maybe to him this is just a game to pass the time, a game that he now thinks he has won. Having won the killer Hirst says that he can now dictate to everybody else what the law is, not parliament, as in the recording the killer Hirst says it is now him that gets to decide who votes, and for somebody that has spent so long fighting to change the law, at our expense, he has very little concept that the law also applies to him.


Blogger jailhouselawyer said...

Where is your evidence that I am a "remorseless killer"? As you were watching a different show, I pointed out that there are 2 Court of Appeal decisions which show that I showed remorse. However, if you prefer to believe a hack who misquoted me then that is your problem.

Ripped apart is not what I call not scoring once against me on the topic of prisoners human right to the vote. But, you appear to be too stupid, biased, ignorant and fearful of the truth.

As for comparisions, try researching the subject. Too often people gob off on topics they know nothing about.

"Voting is not a human right". The Highest Court in Europe has said it is so your opinion counts for naught!

I don't care what my big victory costs everybody else. If the public stood there and did nothing about this human rights abuse then they are as guilty as the State.

Leeching off other? Is that why I sold £2,000 worth of advertising on my blog last week and earned £250 doing a programme with Jamie Oliver?

Don't try to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs. Grow up before you start commenting on grown up things.

5:53 pm  
Blogger chris said...

Good to see that you still do not care about anybody else. You are a killer and you are on record saying that 'remorse is a middle class thing': hence remorseless killer. Most people would recognise remorseless killer is a good discription of somebody that smashes in an old lady's head in then calmly makes himself a cup off coffee while she dies.

When the concept of human rights was created by the likes of Thomas Paine they were those rights that originate in nature. The right to life for example. When the ECHR was drawn up in order to enumerate and protect human rights it mixed some civil rights with together with human rights. That was a mistake and has lead to the likes of you damaging it as a protection for real human rights.

10:54 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home