h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/UserEdit583049

can anyone plese help me with this good topical entry

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A583049
Try this URL instead?

Oh sh** thanks for the help

No problem. It happens.

I olso want peoples genral fealings and comments in thuis plese

I quite like the tone of the entry - but the typos are ... ahem ... awful. This undermines the rest of the information, because it is natural to wonder if the rest of the research is accurate, if you have spelled James Bulger's surname in 3 different ways...

Why not cut and paste the thing into Word, run it through the spell-checker there, and cut and paste it back into the Guide?

Also - I think you mean 'expressed' where you have written 'expired'. ('Expired' means 'died'). And 'torched' and 'torchured' are not the same thing. On my first reading I thought you meant that they had set fire to him. While I am picking nits, the Editors do not like to see 'I' or 'me' in guide entries, so it would be worth taking out the piece in brackets '(im not saying what because it would harm and shock you)'.

More positively - you have approached a delicate and difficult subject calmly and fairly, and I found the piece the right length, informative and thought provoking.

Good luck

***B

There see if thats better .

... erm, no visible changes...

***B

iv run it throo spell chek and done what you said

There are some serious problems with this article, but none of them are unsolvable. First, you use the boys names in full everywhere. This is not needed. As the three boys involved all have different first names, and different last names, you could quite easily choose to use either first names throughout, or lastnames throughout, or if I read the tone of the article right, first name for jammie, in that familiar form, with last names for the killers to increase the amount of sympathy for the victim and depersonalise the killers.

Also, you can't spell "tortured".

Further down the page, you have some other problems. You totally dismiss any possibility of the threats against the boys being valid, some will be. Later in the same line of thought, you state something that probably reads wrong, or at the very least will be censored.

When you state "So if anyone does see a passable photo of the killers don't go out and find the first eighteen-year-old boy who looks like the killers get your facts right first", it reads as "feel free to kill them, but make sure you have got the right people first". If this reading of your intent is right, it will almost certainly be "yikes"'d, and then removed by the censors.

You also miss the fact that they were re-enacting a scene from a film (18)that they were too young to see, without putting any blame on the people who let them see it.

You seem to have a problem with the fact that they are getting out. (at all, not just now). While having the idea that you have the state kill them, or keep them locked up for life is a valid position to take, if you don't intend this to happen, then you must accept that they are going to get out sometime. It then becomes a question of balance as to when you let them out, and how. If you keep them in for another five to ten years, as some of the "hang'em and flog'em" brigade advocate, then you must accept that this need for vengance against them means that they will spend a number of years in a maximum security jail, and will emerge as career thugs.
If you don't want that to happen, then now is the time to let them out, before they must be transferred to the maximum security jail. this ensures that their rehabilitation is least likely to be jepardised.

Sorry about the length of this post, but these are important aspects that you seemed to be missing completely, and without which, there is little hope of producing a balanced article. keep up the good work

oops, that should have read they were re-enacting a scene from a film ( 18 certificate). I think it was reservoir dogs but I am not sure.

im sorry but could you help me with this bit plese .

You seem to have a problem with the fact that they are getting out. (at all, not just now). While having the idea that you have the state kill them, or keep them locked up for life is a valid position to take, if you don't intend this to happen, then you must accept that they are going to get out sometime. It then becomes a question of balance as to when you let them out, and how. If you keep them in for another five to ten years, as some of the "hang'em and flog'em" brigade advocate, then you must accept that this need for vengance against them means that they will spend a number of years in a maximum security jail, and will emerge as career thugs.
If you don't want that to happen, then now is the time to let them out, before they must be transferred to the maximum security jail. this ensures that their rehabilitation is least likely to be jepardised.

The scene which they were purported to have acted out is from the film 'Child's Play 3'. The only fly in the ointment is that they had never seen the film: the closest they got to it was when Jon's father rented it several months before the murder, but Jon wasn't living with him at the time and had not seen it according to the investigating officers. However, as all good tabloid editors know, you should never let facts get in the way of a good headline.

If it were even remotely possible that they had seen it, rest assured it would have featured in their defence: many people claim mitigation for their crimes by citing media influence, and it's a lot easier to justify when the defendants are 10 years old.

certainly.

It relates to the fundamental choices over what to do with anyone in their position.

Society can kill them. (the death penalty) this has problems with miscarriages of justice like the birmingham 6 and the gilford 4. how do you un-kill them when you find you got it wrong.

society can lock them away until they die. This has the problem that they have no reason not to try and escape, as you won't kill them, and they are already in jail for life.

You can lock them away for many years out of a need for vengeance. the problem with this show up in the myra hindley case. she has almost certainly been reformed by now, but it is not politically possible to release her. this then becomes identical to the previous case. Also if you are keeping them locked up to help the relatives need for vengeance, whenever you release them will be too soon. (example bulger's mother and father commenting on the fact that they are still alive, whereas their son is dead).

now comming from the other direction, you can let them out as soon as possible. the problem with this is that if they are seen as not having served long enough, vigilanties will take the law into their own hands. (a related problem with the vigilanties is that inability of these fools to get the right victim) for example, during the recent anti-paedophile riots, a pediatrician was hospitalised due to the fools not being able to tell the difference between a doctor and an abuser, just spotting that the term sounded similar.

If you keep them in longer, you get the problem that the longer they are in, the more likely they are to have to take on the thug mentality. inside, it is a survival trait, outside it is likeley to get you sent back. in the case of these two, there is an extra problem, due to their young age. They have been sent to mental hospitals, and prisons, and rehabilitated for half their life. they are now reaching an age where the controllers of the prison system have no choice but to move them to an adult jail, and when they do it will have to be maximum security due to the nature of their crimes. This will then put them into prolonged close contact with career thugs, murderers, etc. The longer that contact is maintained, the less that expensive rehabilitation will stay working, as it will be anti-survival. In their particular case, they have now served the average time for people who have done their sort of crime, and are thus eligable for release. they are also much better rehabilitated than most due to their age when rehabilitated, and the amout of rehab that they have had. due to the previously mentioned oligation to move them to thug-infested adult prisons, for maximum safety of the public, the balance works out that they should be released before they have to be shifted to adult jail.

Their particular release conditions means that they are out on "life license", meaning that they have to not break the law at all ever again. Combined with decent supervision from the probation service, that makes them as little a threat as they are ever likely to be.

A spererate issue touched upon in an earlier post is that they have been threatened with death. Some of these threats come from people with the ability to carry them out. Therefore, you have to be able to put them into some sort of witness relocation program for their own safety.

Note: I do not expect you to include all, or any of this in your writing, but I think that you need to be aware of it to make your writing balanced. keep up the good work.

Thanks for all your help and I would like to have your name in it at the side as one of the editors. So try this link http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A583049
and thanks for you help!

no problem. it is much better now, and don't worry about the editor's credit, it is all your own work, we who have commented have just provided background information, and feedback to help produce a more polished entry. this has now improved considerably from what it was, so we have succeeded. This is what this area of h2g2 is for (and don't I wish that some of the people posting their entries to peer review in an inferior condition to your first post here would remember this fact). If you really want to give the helpers a mention, just add a comment at the bottom saying something like "thanks to the people on the thread http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/FFM57153?thread=124562&skip=0&show=20#p1095262 for helping to improve this entry". If you cut and past the bit in quotes into your entry, at the bottom, this should do it.
If you later decide to submit this for peer review,it lets them see what we have said so that they don't repeat it.

I have now finshed editing have a look .
Sould I send it to BE EDITED?

you wrote "parents have also expired there fears of forgiven web sights", shouldn't that be "parents have also expressed their fears of forbidden web sites" instead? otherwise, well done, and do feel free to put it in for peer review.

It is no at the peer review page thanks for all your help !

the peer review thread is http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F48874?thread=124983