Comments on: Baby Peter’s killer, Stephen Barker, accuses animal rights group PETA of ruining his reputation…! http://www.culturedviews.com/baby-peters-killer-stephen-barker-accuses-animal-rights-group-peta-of-ruining-his-reputation/2009/10/21/view.htm News, views and commentary Sun, 14 Mar 2010 11:31:21 +0000 hourly 1 By: Leena, Dominic http://www.culturedviews.com/baby-peters-killer-stephen-barker-accuses-animal-rights-group-peta-of-ruining-his-reputation/2009/10/21/view.htm/comment-page-1#comment-2131 Leena, Dominic Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:41:02 +0000 http://www.culturedviews.com/?p=2422#comment-2131 the Peta ad is so very true. Like Gandhiji has said, " The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated." R.I.P Peter XXX the Peta ad is so very true.
Like Gandhiji has said, ” The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

R.I.P Peter XXX

]]> By: Mary http://www.culturedviews.com/baby-peters-killer-stephen-barker-accuses-animal-rights-group-peta-of-ruining-his-reputation/2009/10/21/view.htm/comment-page-1#comment-1410 Mary Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:53:55 +0000 http://www.culturedviews.com/?p=2422#comment-1410 Paul and Wendy you are both so correct and it seems that the vast MAJORITY are not happy with the current state of affairs....I think its fair to say that most people would like to see very harsh sentences, including the death penalty, for people that harm innocent children. Why a small group of policy makers seem to be able to circumvent the will of the majority should be brought to light and scrutinized. "Veneers of respectability"....I love that statement, it is so accurate, the hypocisy has no boundries. It is a giant smokesceen put in place to justify jobs and positions that exsist to protect the criminal and line the pockets of lawyers and politicians. Its of little matter to me, I dont care if these "laws and standards" are abolished as I am certain I will never be facing trial for hurting a child,or anyone else for that matter, I do care a great, great deal if a little boy is neglected, tortured and killed and no one is there to help. I do care if that little boys murderer spends only a few years in jail, playing cards and watching cable and then gets released to hurt more people. We need to demand accountability from our elected officials. And I was never a PETA supporter until this ad. Paul and Wendy you are both so correct and it seems that the vast MAJORITY are not happy with the current state of affairs….I think its fair to say that most people would like to see very harsh sentences, including the death penalty, for people that harm innocent children. Why a small group of policy makers seem to be able to circumvent the will of the majority should be brought to light and scrutinized. “Veneers of respectability”….I love that statement, it is so accurate, the hypocisy has no boundries. It is a giant smokesceen put in place to justify jobs and positions that exsist to protect the criminal and line the pockets of lawyers and politicians. Its of little matter to me, I dont care if these “laws and standards” are abolished as I am certain I will never be facing trial for hurting a child,or anyone else for that matter, I do care a great, great deal if a little boy is neglected, tortured and killed and no one is there to help. I do care if that little boys murderer spends only a few years in jail, playing cards and watching cable and then gets released to hurt more people. We need to demand accountability from our elected officials. And I was never a PETA supporter until this ad.

]]> By: Paul Harris http://www.culturedviews.com/baby-peters-killer-stephen-barker-accuses-animal-rights-group-peta-of-ruining-his-reputation/2009/10/21/view.htm/comment-page-1#comment-1407 Paul Harris Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:49:09 +0000 http://www.culturedviews.com/?p=2422#comment-1407 Mary,I do agree with what you say,in general. I believe that 'civil rights' should be suspended,or at least severely curtailed,on conviction - or at the prison gate. But our 'Justice' system is a bit of a misnomer,in my opinion. It's not about 'truth and justice','did you do it or not?',but who can afford the 'better' legal team. Or if the state (tax-payers)will pay for the best,on your behalf. This particular case is further proof of that. And always the 'shyster' lawyers win. It increasing seems to me to have very little to do with 'right and wrong',or morality. And Wendy,I don't particularly disagree with what you say,either. But there are many thousands of honest,hard-working people in this country that live in infinitely worse conditions than the 'average' prisoner in Britain. It's obscene! Those that know how to 'play the system' - whether they be crooks,benefit cheats,lawyers or politicians (with their veneers of respectability),they all have their golden tickets for the gravy train. And the ordinary,hard working tax-payer funds this skewed morality. Again,I say this case is just another,tragic example of this. Baby Peter was betrayed by many 'professionals',and now his tormentors are being protected and cared for by the same laws and 'standards' that they hide behind,whilst being rewarded hansomly. And everybody blames everybody else,with the odd scapegoat thrown to the wolves.This just is not right,IMHO! Mary,I do agree with what you say,in general. I believe that ‘civil rights’ should be suspended,or at least severely curtailed,on conviction – or at the prison gate. But our ‘Justice’ system is a bit of a misnomer,in my opinion. It’s not about ‘truth and justice’,'did you do it or not?’,but who can afford the ‘better’ legal team. Or if the state (tax-payers)will pay for the best,on your behalf. This particular case is further proof of that. And always the ’shyster’ lawyers win. It increasing seems to me to have very little to do with ‘right and wrong’,or morality.
And Wendy,I don’t particularly disagree with what you say,either. But there are many thousands of honest,hard-working people in this country that live in infinitely worse conditions than the ‘average’ prisoner in Britain. It’s obscene! Those that know how to ‘play the system’ – whether they be crooks,benefit cheats,lawyers or politicians (with their veneers of respectability),they all have their golden tickets for the gravy train. And the ordinary,hard working tax-payer funds this skewed morality. Again,I say this case is just another,tragic example of this. Baby Peter was betrayed by many ‘professionals’,and now his tormentors are being protected and cared for by the same laws and ’standards’ that they hide behind,whilst being rewarded hansomly. And everybody blames everybody else,with the odd scapegoat thrown to the wolves.This just is not right,IMHO!

]]> By: Wendy http://www.culturedviews.com/baby-peters-killer-stephen-barker-accuses-animal-rights-group-peta-of-ruining-his-reputation/2009/10/21/view.htm/comment-page-1#comment-1403 Wendy Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:46:47 +0000 http://www.culturedviews.com/?p=2422#comment-1403 Mary you can bet your boots that creature is NOT living in the same squalor that poor little Peter had to exist in. For a start prison rights activists would not stand for it if prisoners had to wade their way through dog excrement to get to their dining room for their meals - which was the case in Peter's home at Penhurst Road, Tottenham ...and they would be fed three square meals a day rather than have to scratch out in the dirt like Peter was seen doing by neighbours. He would be enjoying protective custody - as Tracey Connolly also does - so nobody is able to touch a hair on his head and hurt HIM! And now he receives protection from public shaming courtesy of his legal firm - there's no doubt about it, the rights are all on the side of the criminal nowadays. Mary you can bet your boots that creature is NOT living in the same squalor that poor little Peter had to exist in. For a start prison rights activists would not stand for it if prisoners had to wade their way through dog excrement to get to their dining room for their meals – which was the case in Peter’s home at Penhurst Road, Tottenham …and they would be fed three square meals a day rather than have to scratch out in the dirt like Peter was seen doing by neighbours.
He would be enjoying protective custody – as Tracey Connolly also does – so nobody is able to touch a hair on his head and hurt HIM!
And now he receives protection from public shaming courtesy of his legal firm – there’s no doubt about it, the rights are all on the side of the criminal nowadays.

]]> By: Mary http://www.culturedviews.com/baby-peters-killer-stephen-barker-accuses-animal-rights-group-peta-of-ruining-his-reputation/2009/10/21/view.htm/comment-page-1#comment-1402 Mary Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:28:26 +0000 http://www.culturedviews.com/?p=2422#comment-1402 Perhaps that was not the best phrase to use Paul but what I am trying to express is that the protecting the so called "rights" of people like Barker is infringing upon MY rights to not waste money on scum and is actually taking away from things such as....Social Services. Why is the coffer never empty when its time for a convicted, violent criminals to drum up frivolous litigation? We never seem to hear that "there just isnt the money for your 4th appeal" or "there just isnt the money for you to sue Corrections because you dont like the food"....not to mention the costs that arent even considered, extra officers to transport these animals back and forth from prison to court and additional security. I am in complete agreement that greedy lawyers perpetuate these appeals and lawsuits and let us not forget, many politicians are lawyers. It also seems that Tracy Connolly's "right" to keep her children trumped poor Peter's right to live. One persons rights should not harm those of another or society's as a whole. In closing, Wendy, it would be interesting to know what the running costs of Steven Barker have been to the British taxpayer, and I would be willing to bet that he is living in far better conditions than little Peter ever did. Perhaps that was not the best phrase to use Paul but what I am trying to express is that the protecting the so called “rights” of people like Barker is infringing upon MY rights to not waste money on scum and is actually taking away from things such as….Social Services. Why is the coffer never empty when its time for a convicted, violent criminals to drum up frivolous litigation? We never seem to hear that “there just isnt the money for your 4th appeal” or “there just isnt the money for you to sue Corrections because you dont like the food”….not to mention the costs that arent even considered, extra officers to transport these animals back and forth from prison to court and additional security. I am in complete agreement that greedy lawyers perpetuate these appeals and lawsuits and let us not forget, many politicians are lawyers.
It also seems that Tracy Connolly’s “right” to keep her children trumped poor Peter’s right to live. One persons rights should not harm those of another or society’s as a whole. In closing, Wendy, it would be interesting to know what the running costs of Steven Barker have been to the British taxpayer, and I would be willing to bet that he is living in far better conditions than little Peter ever did.

]]>