Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Harry Roberts has been freed

What's a "cocksock?"

Something you learned at Eton?
374388_236595303153446_1493125276_n.jpg
 
What makes you imagine that the whole world will hate his guts?

He killed two innocent men, he's one of the most notorious murderers still alive, so he's hardly going to be made man of the year is he? I'm just suggesting that when he's out life would be a lot easier for him if he were to show genuine remorse and apologise to his victim's families.
 
Last edited:
He killed two innocent men, he's one of the most notorious murderers still alive, so he's hardly going to be made man of the year is he? I'm just suggesting that when he's out, life would be a lot easier for him if he were to show genuine remorse and apologise to his victim's families.
'tuesday's child' named charles manson man of the year in 1970. but it's a bit late to name roberts man of the year for the three plod at wormwood scrubs.
 
He killed two innocent men, he's one of the most notorious murderers still alive...

Always with the hyperbole. :facepalm: The most notorious UK murderers alive are people like Dennis Nilssen, Peter Sutcliffe etc, not some armed robber who shot two coppers - which is the main reason for his notoriety, not because his crime was egregiously perfidious or horrific.

so he's hardly going to be made man of the year is he? I'm just suggesting that when he's out life would be a lot easier for him if he were to show genuine remorse and apologise to his victim's families.

You mean apologise on your terms, given that he's already expressed regret for the harm done to the families of the men he killed?
And what value those words, if he doesn't mean them and/or the "victims' families" decide that he doesn't mean them? Who's the judge of whether remorse is genuine - the Home Secretary; you; Andy Capp?
 
No shit Sherlock!

I was taking issue with your statement that "Roberts has served his punishment".

The punishment was a minimum 30 years not a maximum 30 years. It therefore does not follow that he has necessarily "served his punishment", ya tool.

Given that just under 80% of lifers are let out on licence after serving their minimum recommendation, I think that the precedent is very clearly that having served your recommended minimum it does follow that he could be considered to have served his punishment, you leper's codpiece.
 
Always with the hyperbole. :facepalm: The most notorious UK murderers alive are people like Dennis Nilssen, Peter Sutcliffe etc, not some armed robber who shot two coppers - which is the main reason for his notoriety, not because his crime was egregiously perfidious or horrific.

He murdered two innocent men. He is notorious. Are you trying to say he didn't and he isn't??

You mean apologise on your terms, given that he's already expressed regret for the harm done to the families of the men he killed?
And what value those words, if he doesn't mean them and/or the "victims' families" decide that he doesn't mean them? Who's the judge of whether remorse is genuine - the Home Secretary; you; Andy Capp?

Where has he 'expressed regret'? What did he say?
 
He killed two innocent men, he's one of the most notorious murderers still alive, so he's hardly going to be made man of the year is he? I'm just suggesting that when he's out life would be a lot easier for him if he were to show genuine remorse and apologise to his victim's families.
Bah. 48 years later, the best thing to have happened would have been for him to have been released quietly, without fanfare. Unfortunately, the police, among others, have ensured that this has not happened.
 
He murdered two innocent men. He is notorious. Are you trying to say he didn't and he isn't??

No, I'm saying that your claim that "he's one of the most notorious murderers still alive" is a sack of unmitigated hyperbolic shite, and that if you asked the average "murder buff" to name the UK's 10 most notorious murderers still alive, Roberts probably wouldn't feature.


Where has he 'expressed regret'? What did he say?

It's been linked to twice on this thread, which I'm sure you've been reading, rather than skimming...:hmm:
 
No, I'm saying that your claim that "he's one of the most notorious murderers still alive" is a sack of unmitigated hyperbolic shite, and that if you asked the average "murder buff" to name the UK's 10 most notorious murderers still alive, Roberts probably wouldn't feature.

Most of us aren't 'murder buffs' but imo most will heard of him, especially now. Anyone who was around when it happened will certainly remember him.

It's been linked to twice on this thread, which I'm sure you've been reading, rather than skimming...:hmm:

No I haven't read the whole thread. Are you going to tell me what he said or not?
 
Most of us aren't 'murder buffs' but imo most will heard of him, especially now. Anyone who was around when it happened will certainly remember him.



No I haven't read the whole thread. Are you going to tell me what he said or not?
I am 47 and have never heard of him so I am not sure how many people would have heard of him before this week
 
I've just found this in The Guardian:

“We shot them because they were going to nick us and we didn’t want to go to jail for 15 years,” Roberts told the Guardian’s Nick Davies in a prison interview in 1993. “We were professional criminals. We don’t react the same way as ordinary people. The police aren’t like real people to us. They’re strangers. They’re the enemy. And you don’t feel remorse for killing a stranger.

“I do feel sorry for what we did to their families. I do. But it’s like people I killed in Malaya when I was in the army. You don’t feel remorse.”

So not much of an apology and no remorse.
 
Given that just under 80% of lifers are let out on licence after serving their minimum recommendation, I think that the precedent is very clearly that having served your recommended minimum it does follow that he could be considered to have served his punishment, you leper's codpiece.

True. It's also worth mentioning that he's out on life licence which means if he so much as spits on the pavement he can be recalled to prison.
 
normally, when such-and-such big bad killer from yesteryear is flagged for release by the parole board I reckon it's because they reckon they're about to pop their clogs and they don't want to pay for it or to get the home secretary to force their hand because of public opinion so it's really a bit of a non-issue really.
 
You're too young mate! :)

I was only nine, but I even remember where I was when I heard the news. It was big big news at the time.

In that case you should remember that he was found guilty of three murders, not two as you have repeatedly suggested.

Unless your reference to "two innocent men" means that you regard one of those murdered as guilty in some way...
 
In that case you should remember that he was found guilty of three murders, not two as you have repeatedly suggested.

Unless your reference to "two innocent men" means that you regard one of those murdered as guilty in some way...
You're nitpicking. All three were found guilty of three murders. One - Roberts - killed two, one killed one and the other didn't kill anyone. Joint enterprise innit. They were a socialist murdering collective. :hmm:
 
You're nitpicking. All three were found guilty of three murders. One - Roberts - killed two, one killed one and the other didn't kill anyone. Joint enterprise innit.

No, I'm not nit-picking.

I'm pointing out* that anyone depending on a childhood memory of an event that happened fifty years ago and asserting that they know best on that basis, but without even having taken the trouble to read all the thread on which it's currently being discussed can't expect to be taken entirely seriously.

And I understand the concept of joint enterprise, BTW, though I wouldn't blame the 9 y.o. Andrew Hertford for not understanding it. Just goes further to show he should update his knowledge rather than relying on 50 y.o. memories.

ETA* admittedly in a rather roundabout way
 
Back
Top Bottom