David,

No, please continue to write here and express your outrage and disgust at such criminal idiocy. You're doing a good job.

Dawkins,

Thanks for that. I think I write best when I am moved by a story and I looked at the image of the 14 yr old girl - now in her grave - and looked at the image of this piece of vermin Clark - and knew that I HAD to comment on it. I know crime happens all the time but this family have been devastated by what happened and it has to be right to stand up and abhor it.

David -

Since capital punishment was abolished, well over 100 people have been murdered by previously convicted murderers who were released and kill again. I have no doubt that even more people have been murdered by those like Clark: previously convicted of rapes and extremely violent crimes deemed trivial by the ruling class.

For a long time I've been saying that relatives of victims must make it personal on those who make these decisions. Ministers, judges, parole boards and probation officers must made responsible for what they do.

Of course, justice demands that Michael Clark be hanged for what he did. However you and I would be deemed barbaric by an establishment whose criminal justice policies have proven catastrophic. Let's remember that the explicit promise made to the British people was that life would mean life for murder when capital punishment ended, and that that state has repeatedly reneged on this compact.

Liberal orthodoxy is that punishment is wrong and sentences are becoming more lenient for all crimes. Some even believe that prisons ought not to exist. One day they won't in any case, except for anti-liberal heretics and pensioners who can't afford council tax increases.

I sincerely hope that the Zommer family one day find it in themselves to make those responsible for Clark's freedom to kill pay. They are accessories to rape and murder.

<<Some days I wonder why I write here>>

I know the feeling. So does everyone.
In more saner times people like Clark would have been hung by the neck 'til dead, and society, without doubt, would then be a safer place for the innocent.

The West is going through a period of madness and self-flagellation at present, mainly I think as a reaction to the killing fields of the 20th century.
It's a pendulum that has swung first one way then the other over centuries.
I would like to still be around when it re-adjusts itself, as it will, given time and a 'leadership' that won't run scared and will spell out the truth.
Over to you Allan.

Yes "crime happens all the time" but lines in the sand need to be drawn and fought over. We all (I am sure) remember the Stephen Lawrence case. Our society was deeply affected by it mainly because of the campaign launched afterwards. That may have been a misuse of public energy, but it shows what is necessary to make things change.

Right thinking people need to take such cases as Zuzana Zommer's and stomp all over the judiciary who permit this nightmare and the pressure groups who enable it.

I wouldn't be surprised if this girl wasn't targeted partly because she (being a foreigner) might not have been as suspicious of Clark as a normal English girl. Too tragic, and too enraging.

Tough story. Most violent offenders, especially sex offenders, will repeat their crimes. The light sentencing is criminal in and of itself. If your local politician isn't trying to change that, you shouldn't give them your vote.

There is more reason than ever before to resinstate the death penalty. With the advantage of DNA evidence it is a no brainer.

They do Pete. Which is why i fully support the mother of the woman murdered by a violent porn addicted raping murderer to draw a line in the sand and say enough. As she said herself what about the freedom of her daughter to live. And yet you read how this mother is utterly utterly despised by so called free speech champions (same as human rights bozos) who refuse to acknowledge the damage and even concede some limits that would no significantly affect their little obsessions. They pervert quite literally the true meaning of free speech and happily thumb their noses at acceptable losses. She was one. And this girl here was an acceptable loss for so called human rights activists.

Relatives of these crimes very rarely score victories. God bless the woman.

I seriously doubt the death penalty will be reinstated in your country, but you should definitely demand from your lawmakers and the judiciary that rational sentencing (life without parole) be imposed on these violent predators. There is absolutely no excuse for repeat criminals like this guy to be walking around free.

Absolutely agree Daphne. I cannot understand why the authorities are so reluctant to accept that some individuals and this man was clearly one of them , are so disturbed and dangerous that fixed term prison sentences will clearly never deter them. They need to kept away from open society for the whole of their natural lives.

I know how you feel btw David. This was an excellent post.

I thought i would share with you a more hopeful story about justice in such crimes which is so so rare regards the police work involved.

You will recall we had a slew of sex crime at the start of the year which was totally harrowing and very violent?

Levi Bellfield was one such animal. He put his victims family through hell in court toying with their emotions as they struggled through the weight of repulsive (DNA based) evidence against him.

A clear ‘women-hater’ - Paul Jarvis, a fellow inmate, said that Bellfield had confessed to killing Amelie Delagrange, 22, and had boasted that “you can do what you want” to women“ such was his sense of entitlement.

In spite of the horrors of this Levi case and the relatively small amount of respect I have for our judicial system, lawyers and judges generally, it was good to read the police officers involved in this case receive some recognition. Some of the officers left the court in tears when he was sent down.

I’m aware that police officers can bust their balls to bring someone to trial only to see the CPS or a slew of human rights lawyers undermine everything they do. Or have the mistakes they make put ahead of the successes and every single move they make scrutinised as though they were worse than the criminals they pursue. The horrific nature of the Bellfield case and those young teen girls - it must have been harrowing to investigate and it would take the patience of a saint to sit through the interrogation with that ‘man’ and not want to smash his arrogant face in.

Like the infamous Austrian Bellfield claimed he was 'misunderstood'.

The judge called Detective Chief Inspector Colin Sutton, who led the inquiry, back to the witness box to commend him for his work. As he stood, pink in the face, the Sheedy and Delagrange families burst into a round of applause.

One after the other the details of these hideous sex crime cases emerges, one after another of the young female victims with yet more to emerge. Why should the rest of us now pay for these unrepentent individuals to live only marginally inconvenienced in one of Britain’s prison cells?

With less and less room for error with the rapid improvement of DNA testing and use of CCTV the verdict can be assured as unequivocable. Unlike the 1950s there is MORE cause to argue for the death penalty and less of a reason to argue against. Then we will see if the Bellfields of this world still feel you can 'do what you want to women'. And the violent rapist serving life who escaped a second time in 3 years a few weeks ago and was only recently re-caught - they would not be feeling quite so smug.

Given that the current incarnation of 'Human Rights', is largely inspired, or perhaps, infected may be a better word, - by the United Nations, it is hardly surprising that it is having many unintended consequences, especially when interpreted by such people as we have in our three major political parties, with their eternal search for equality, and vigilance of human rights.

It seems that 'rights' are only for some, and not others, which may explain their lenience where the criminal class is concerned, - some sort of 'fellow feeling', or perhaps, a 'there but for the grace of God, go I', sentiment.

Whether it be on a world, or a personal level, the message they convey is that might is right, whether it is the bully raping a child, a junta subduing a nation, terrorists killing and maiming, or just an unruly child disrupting a lesson.

The answer to any threat, at any level, the only answer is ' more talk, and more understanding, more appeasement, and maybe a solution will be found', no mention of the human rights of the many victims who pay the price for their irrational political dogma. No means of recompense of any sort for them!

The very fact that in the UK, if you see such an attack and try to prevent it in any meaningful way, you are just as likely to end up being prosecuted as the perpetrator of the original attack.

It is so sad that such horrors can happen to anyone, let alone a child, and in a so-called civilised country! The older I get, the less I can understand that such evil can exist, let alone run around virtually unhindered...

Allan,

Ah! - but rest assured, they are listening!, such a pity they do not understand what they are hearing...

12.51 pm..

Here we are again - same justifiable outrage at a state which victimises the decent and law-abiding because it gives priority to the criminal. Are Dave's Cons going to change anything, and I mean anything at all?
Each of the points made in the preceding posts has merit and yet we can all be sure, absolutely sure, that none of these points or suggestions will be discussed or implemented by the political clique (the LibLabCon) which rules us.
Colm, do you think that your suggestion above will ever be implemented?

Allan

Sadly no I don't.

We kid ourselves that by abolishing the death penalty we now recognise the sanctity of life and that this is the civilised thing to do. But surely, by putting the right to life of the killer above the right to life of the victim we have not only got our logic backwards but are hurting our society.

i fail to see what this has got to do with human rights.

and apparently according to peter t, murderers only murder because they have elavated rights.

a pile of pish as they say.

daytripper

The human rights element was the line used by Shelter when it imsisted he had the right to choose where he wanted to live and to be prioritised by the local council for accomodation.

Peter T did not exactly say what you claim though, but it is a fact that if certain individuals are not given full life sentences we are increasing the risk that there will be more victims of their violent urges.

The human rights element was the line used by Shelter when it imsisted he had the right to choose where he wanted to live and to be prioritised by the local council for accomodation.

but human rights didnt kill the young girl, the murderer did. you might as well blame the maker of his shoes getting him there quickly and quietly.

Peter T did not exactly say what you claim though, but it is a fact that if certain individuals are not given full life sentences we are increasing the risk that there will be more victims of their violent urges.

i was being flippant. i was exposing the fallacy of his statement.

Daytripper

yes I accept that 'human rights' bit is a tenuous link,and obviously he could have killed wherever he was living but it just adds to people's sense of frustration at the leniency with which authorities treat serious offenders like this man.

Doesn't the human rights aspect come into play when you realise that this criminal had commited similar acts several times before, and it was the leniency and the pleading of parole officers etc. about his 'human rights' that enabled him the freedom to do the same thing again.

Committing harm to another human should automatically obviate a criminals 'human rights'. As in this case, behave like a beast and expect the worst that society is inclined to offer...

Why did he deserve priority treatment? Why does he have rights that exceed other people in need of housing?

NRG, I suppose because our flawed modern understanding of "human rights" is that they are fixed and immutable, that they are there for all time, regardless of one's actions.
We have forgotten that a "right" is actually supposed to be a gift, a PRIVILEGE, not a self-evident constant, but something that has to be EARNED by performance of a DUTY, and which can therefore be revoked by whoever granted it in the first place.
As an example of my way of thinking on this issue, (and I know I run the risk of doing so, but by giving this example, I do not mean to sidetrack this thread and turn it into a debate re abortion, as we've been there before), in my opinion, even the "pro-life" side gets the phraseology all wrong, in principle, by insisting upon the "right to life" of the unborn child/foetus. It's not so much that it has that inalienable right in and of itself, but rather that (IMO) the mother has NO right to terminate it. It's the fundamental LACK of a right, and not the existence of one, which is, (or IMO ought to be) the basis of our thinking, in terms of legislation.

Maggie Thatcher is famed for her "no such thing as society" (mis)quote. Well I have another such maxim: There is no such thing as human rights. Instead, there are human wrongs, and those wrongs (and their subsequent punishments) are the only issues which the legislative branch of government need ever concern itself with.

Tom, your last paragraph - well said!