• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
escargot1 said:
Who knows what they fell out over? Could have been a scramble for the last slice of toast. ;)

Once in prison, a person's offence is not the most important thing about them. Offences are not necessarily even discussed: if inmates don't talk about what they're in for, nobody need know, unless they are especially notorious and have been splashed across the news.

So Sutcliffe's injury is unlikely to be an act of private revenge on behalf of an appalled society against a hideous murderer. The toast scenario is much more likely.

Quite possibly, I realise this is off topic, but having spent some time in prison in my younger days i can confirm that fights do break out over the last bit of toast or over real or imagined slights which would be ignored outside. Prison fights are invariably horrible and contain very high levels of brutal violence. You can't have the same fight over and over again with someone you may see every day for years, so the idea is to "impress" upon them with the maximum of violence and brutality. It really ain't nice or easy.
 
I was in A&E at Frimley Park hospital when Sutcliffe was brought in a few years ago.

Apparently my mate could see the pen sticking out of the guy's face on the stretcher. I'm afraid I was very, very drunk.

We didn't know who it was at the time, obviously.
 
Mouldy13 said:
Quite possibly, I realise this is off topic, but having spent some time in prison in my younger days i can confirm that fights do break out over the last bit of toast or over real or imagined slights which would be ignored outside.

In Jimmy Lerner's book You Got Nothing Coming he mentions the fact that the guards in his US prison dread the days when fishsticks are served at dinnertime, (I assume fishsticks are the US equivalent of fish-fingers but may well be wrong), because they inspire a level of desire in inmates which more often than not results in violence, sometimes extreme violence. From what I can recall of the book the general attitude seems to be that if there's a full moon, or fishsticks on the menu, you need to be on your guard but if the two coincide, you really need to pull a sicky.
 
That sounds like an interesting book. :D

Hey Mouldy, I appreciate your sharing your experiences there. There's nothing like getting it from the horse's mouth! Thanks very much. 8)
 
It is. Despite the occasionally grating tone (maybe a few too many appeals for sympathy) it sits head and shoulders above most other prison memoirs I've read, and is also very funny, sometimes at the same moment that it's being very disturbing.

Actually, the appeals to sympathy aren't altogether ineffective as the process by which Lerner, a non-career criminal - a “regular” guy, ended up in prison is frightening because it’s so easy to understand, and to see ourselves in the same situation under those circumstances.

Basically Lerner killed the man who was stalking him. What is also fascinating, and what caused Lerner most difficulties during his trial, is how (and this may be a process exclusive to male on male stalking – I don’t know enough about the subject to judge) in his case the “victim” appears to collaborate in his own victimisation - ie the processes by which he attempts to avoid conflict appear to be encouraging the stalker rather than encouraging an end to the stalking.
 
Spookdaddy said:
(I assume fishsticks are the US equivalent of fish-fingers but may well be wrong).

Fishsticks are miscellaneous fish bits formed into shapes longer than they are wide, breaded, frozen, and baked by the mother who bought them to feed to their kids, usually with tartar sauce, alongside other convenience foods like canned beans, packaged mac and cheese, and potato chips. The tartar sauce is necessary because they don't have that much flavor!

I suspect their popularity in prison and other institutional settings is that it's a low-cost, low-effort meal that Mom falls back on a lot. Unlike hamburger and pizza, which are restaurant fare, or chili mac and pepper steak, which were invented for bulk eating, they evoke mother-love; unlike fried chicken, meat loaf, apple pie, enchiladas, spaghetti, or whatever your mom's specialty was, they don't suffer in comparison with her recipe because there's no recipe. The flavor and texture don't vary at all from brand to brand.

Or maybe some people retain a taste for them into adult life. I have to put it in the category of stuff that I can't imagine how I ever liked it, along with grape soda, artificial strawberry anything, Neapolitan ice cream, etc.
 
PeniG said:
Spookdaddy said:
(I assume fishsticks are the US equivalent of fish-fingers but may well be wrong).

Fishsticks are miscellaneous fish bits formed into shapes longer than they are wide, breaded, frozen,...

Yup, that would be the same as a fish finger. And I have to confess that fish-finger sandwiches are a delicacy I still indulge in and as such I can concieve throwing a wobbly if the fat sweaty lag sitting next to me allows his glance to linger on my plate for longer than I feel necessary!!

On a serious note I think it's not at all uncommon, especially for the institutionalised, for objects to be given a currency well-beyond their actual intrinsic value - if any. (Siblings do this all the time - fighting over the possession of items which no-one else could conceive had any value, practical or otherwise). Couple this with the fact that in many institutions - retirement homes, hospitals, schools - mealtimes represent an important break in the tedium of routine and restriction then in a place where said tedium is 24/7 and legally enforced I don't think its any surprise that mealtimes can be a bit fraught.
 
CarlosTheDJ said:
I was in A&E at Frimley Park hospital when Sutcliffe was brought in a few years ago.

Apparently my mate could see the pen sticking out of the guy's face on the stretcher. I'm afraid I was very, very drunk.


.

I trust you weren't a junior doctor in the dept at the time.... :shock:
 
PeniG said:
Spookdaddy said:
(I assume fishsticks are the US equivalent of fish-fingers but may well be wrong).

Fishsticks are miscellaneous fish bits formed into shapes longer than they are wide, breaded, frozen, [...] ad infinitum

So ... yes, they equate as fish fingers in the UK.
 
Rrose_Selavy said:
CarlosTheDJ said:
I was in A&E at Frimley Park hospital when Sutcliffe was brought in a few years ago.

Apparently my mate could see the pen sticking out of the guy's face on the stretcher. I'm afraid I was very, very drunk.


.

I trust you weren't a junior doctor in the dept at the time.... :shock:

No we were customers don't worry.

Vodka-snorting related injury.
 
stuneville said:
Yeah - it seems very consistent, always the same objective, and over a number of years. If it is coincidental it's remarkably so.

I’m open to accusations of needless over-analysis but I wonder if the following makes sense to anyone else.

Prisons are places of observation and although the absolute lack of privacy envisioned in Bentham’s Panopticon may not be currently the trend in prison theory there’s no doubt that the times at which an individual is not subject to observation, or at least the potential that they may be being observed, is minimal. If prisons are places of observation surely prison hospitals are doubly so - the individual is being watched because not to have them incarcerated in a place where they can be is seen as a threat to society, but also they are being watched because they are deemed to be sick and not to have them incarcerated in a place where they can be observed is seen a danger to the individual.

In such circumstances, where the act of being alone and unobserved is so rare, maybe it’s understandable that the gaze of another can be construed as a violent or provocative act - or simply that the eyes, being the organ of sight and, by extension, oppression and incarceration, become a specific target in the event of any violent altercation.

I’d be more convinced that the apparent targeting of Sutcliffe’s eyes had any particular significance outside this more general one and the fact that the eyes are an easy target, especially when considering weapons used inside prisons tend to be homemade or consist of what comes to hand at the time and are therefore not necessarily that effective unless used on the softer parts, if it was compared with information on other attacks inside prisons.
 
We're watching 'Double Time' on ITV1. It's set half in an imaginary Essex prison, where some of the action revolves around discussing important matters like portion sizes. :lol:
 
I've just read an American crime novel where the term 'small eyes' is applied to Paedophiles. (This was new terminology to me.)
 
The board clock is crap - doesn't know if it's coming or going.
 
rynner said:
I've just read an American crime novel where the term 'small eyes' is applied to Paedophiles. (This was new terminology to me.)

I've heard the term 'short eyes' used in that context before.
 
Going back to the recent attack on sutcliffe...

..i suppose anyone who kills/blinds him will become famous for 10 minutes. Its sad that some people think like that, but the most notorious are always some kind of trophy. Last I heard he was eating himself to death anyway.

I remember from a documentary that one attack at the time was done by a diffferent man and they btried to blend two different photo fits, anyone remember this?
 
I wonder if this can come off without the same sort of shit that surrounded Hindley and Brady, i.e. politicians sticking their noses into sentencing:

Yorkshire Ripper could be released from Broadmoor

YORKSHIRE Ripper Peter Sutcliffe could be released from Broadmoor after doctors decided he is no longer dangerous.

The man responsible for the horrifically brutal murder of 13 women is currently in Broadmoor top security prison for criminals with psychiatric conditions.

Doctors from the prison have now informed Sutcliffe's lawyers that they consider him low risk.

Theoretically Sutcliffe could apply for release to a Mental Health Review Tribunal which, again theoretically, could order his release on licence.

Sutcliffe, now 62, has been in prison for 28 years. He was imprisoned for life in 1981.

During the late 1970s he was responsible for a five year reign of terror during which he murdered 13 women and attempted to murder seven others. His hallmark was mutilation using a hammer and other tools.

He eventually gave himself up to police when he was stopped for a routine check.

Detectives hunting him were led astray by a hoax tape from a man pretending to by the perpetrator of Sutcliffe's crimes.

Sutcliffe, a lorry driver from Bradford, was initially sent to a normal prison, but four years after being sentenced he was transferred to Broadmoor.

The Yorkshire Evening Post ran a campaign urging the Home Office to ensure that he is never released.

However he has himself campaigned for the right to be given a fixed tariff for his crimes, meaning that one day he would be released.

If he is now classified as "low risk" he could in theory be sent to a lower security unit, such a move can possibly be a preparation for release.

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... 4990294.jp
 
BlackRiverFalls said:
I wonder if this can come off without the same sort of shit that surrounded Hindley and Brady, i.e. politicians sticking their noses into sentencing:

In a word, nope. Not a chance. :lol:
 
Broadmoor isn't a prison, it's a hospital and is part of the NHS. Yes, it's high security, and has big walls and fences and gates and other stuff, and looks like a prison if you happen to see the outside of the place, but it is most certainly a hospital.

Sorry, just wanted to clear that up.
 
Yup, the question is whether he should be put back into the prison system and thus 'released' only from Broadmoor, but of course the way the Scum sees it, any form of 'release' means ALLOWING THIS MONSTER TO WALK THE STREETS, FREE TO KILL AGAIN!
 
Rather than being shunted back in to the prison system, he could remain within the NHS but move to a medium secure unit or something. The various options would all count as "release from Broadmoor", but most aren't nearly as likely to stir up the seething masses as the vague hint of a suggestion of turning such a person out onto the streets to live out his days in amongst common, decent, hard-working people who pay their taxes blah blah blah - insert the usual tabloid press rants here.

The way such things are often reported in the press really does wind me up sometimes.
 
The 30 year tariff he was given at his trial runs out in 2011... he is eligable for parole after that, though that's not to say that he will necessarily get it...
 
I've just watched this (far too close to bedtime):


I was a toddler at the time and have never given the case much attention. I was obviously aware of Sutcliffe's prison career and the existence of the Wearside Jack hoaxer, but that is about it.

I found this documentary informative, depressing and rather chilling.
 
Last edited:
Resurrecting what's been said before years ago this thread but this brings back many memories. Before he was identified I used to drive past the house where he lived virtually every day. During the time of the lengthy investigation many roadblocks were set up around the city every night and no matter which route you took drivers were stopped and interrogated. It happened to me and probably thousands of people many times.The cost of this part of the Police work alone must have been enormous. Really bad time for the community.
 
It probably is legal somewhere, though a society which would allow the level of barbarity which I'm guessing you're thinking of wouldn't inflict it on a man to punish him for crimes against mere women.

Punishing barbarity with barbarity would be a rather odd way to signal disapproval at barbarity.


Is it right or is it wrong?
 
Thirty-seven years ago this month, a British lorry driver, Peter Sutcliffe, was arrested for a series of attacks on women in the north of England known as the Yorkshire Ripper murders.

He was convicted of killing 13 women and attacking seven others, but there have since been calls to investigate him for further crimes.

Could he be linked to two unsolved killings in Sweden?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/the_ripper_and_the_swedish_murders
 
Thirty-seven years ago this month, a British lorry driver, Peter Sutcliffe, was arrested for a series of attacks on women in the north of England known as the Yorkshire Ripper murders.

He was convicted of killing 13 women and attacking seven others, but there have since been calls to investigate him for further crimes.

Could he be linked to two unsolved killings in Sweden?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/the_ripper_and_the_swedish_murders
Thanks for posting that - very interesting piece. I'm always uncomfortable hitting the 'like' button when the subject matter is something like this; it just doesn't seem right somehow.
 
Back
Top