Naa Biblical.

Stabbing a single person over 100 times sounds rather savage in my books. Anywho, thats not the point i want to make with this post, so i'll shift on.


We'll ignore the fact he's still in jail for a moment. The first point i'd like to look at is whether he is actually eligible for the course. I had a quick look for economic related courses at Napier, and there are 2 courses. Accounting with Economics and Economics with Management. Both these courses require a minimum of 230 UCAS points, which translates to a minimum of an A and a B at A Level, or 2 C's and a D at A Level or a multitude of other combinations. The point I'm trying to make is these aren't exactly courses you can just walk in on. Not massively difficult, but still not a cake walk.

So i wonder, is Mr. Nicol actually eligible for this course? I mean throwing money at him to give him an education worth 4 grand* a year, for 4 years is one thing. But allowing him in straight off the bat is just not on. Most people spend 2 years of their lives at sixth form/college developing the required qualifications to get on university courses. Money can be thrown around as if it's as cheap as the paper it's printed on, but time, especially 2 years of time, can't be bought. If everyone else has to spend 2 years of their lives putting in the time and effort to get on one of these courses, so should he.

Now i could be completely wrong, because there's no information on his previous education in any of the reports i've seen. But he was 17 when he was thrown in jail so even if he was studying A levels at the time, and even if he was on track to get 230+ UCAS points, he won't have finished his A Levels.

Now lets have a look at the actual course costs shall we? I believe in his right to education if he's eligible for it. But i don't believe he should get everything free. Even those students that are entitled to all the financial help on offer, still will have to get a student loan to cover the costs. Why not make him do the same? Get him a student loan that he has to repay once he's earning £14,000+ a year. That way it doesn't hinder his education in anyway, yet it puts him in the same boat as the rest of us.


*I don't actually know how much this course costs a year because this stupid page isn't displaying properly, so i've just taken the average cost for uni courses. If anyone can quote me the exact course cost a year that'd be ace.*

well all courses are around the smae and mine was 3,250 and is now increasing to 3,750 but i get half price for being an english resident lol there ya go for ur info

He isnt a savage killer or else he wouldnt be allowed into general populace. Peter Sutcliffe, Myra Hindley and Ian Brady are savage killers, people so unable to repress the urge to kill that they are forbidden from entering society - and rightly so.

All this number crunching about costs of courses etc and his "right" to education based on his grades at secondary and first tier higher education to me arent relevant. Work out how much it costs all of us to keep him locked up for 25 years? Bear in mind that it costs in excess of £100 per day to keep someone in prison. We are talking perhaps a £40k+ bill every year that someone is in jail. You can't get away from it, as a citizen of this country who pays taxes (on whatever earnings you have) you have to pay towards that £40k a year.

With me yet? So the choice is simple - either leave him to rot in jail and give nothing back to society (deny the opportunity to rehabilitate) for the cost of an average annual salary, or use some of our tax money to provide him with an education to get a job and pay something back into the system (put back in effect what he has taken out).

Of course he's not elegible through the normal qualification procedures - he's been in jail. Surely the job of any functional education system though is to provide flexibility in order that opportunity is offered in most scenarios? Even those unable to afford university education have better opportunity to access further education in life than he ever would. And before we say he chose this path by commiting murder none of us know the circumstance leading up to his crime, we know nothing about his background, childhood or upbringing. My point being that just as social, economic and personal influences can reskut in an ability to access university, so in turn can they lead to the unfortunate turn of events that occured in this mans life.

his circumstance at that time was a footy argument... that gives him right does it?

they could at leas make him do A levels and earn a place and if he works hard and gets the grades then fair enough but if he doesn't give a damn then he won't pass the A levels and it's cheaper than sending him to uni.

Think of it from a students perspective instead of your own. None of us knew he was there and I have a friend who has economics lecture, personlly i hate the fact that she could be sitting next to him because I care about her and dont want her to get hurt

And I m sorry but what he did was savage he just didn't know when to stop and killed an innocent man, if thts not savage then i hate the world we're living in

How do you know that he hasn't got his A levels? He's been in prison since 1999 & the article doesn't mention any lack of qualifications or special dispensations.

Ok so you can categorically state that everyone else at your university has no criminal record and that he is the only criminal found out by frankly the poorest sourced newspaper in the British Isles? Prior to reading aforementioned article you never gave a thought to the possibility that not everybody who attends university has had a "normal life" in coming from secondary education, through college and into university?

I don't understand why everybody is worried about their safety - if the man was a danger he wouldnt be there would he. The prison system is flawed but not that flawed that it lets a convicted killer (I won't continue to use the term savage as I believe that's what he was - not what he is) sit in an institution of higher education with vulnerable students, the world just isn't like that.

You don't seem to have seen the point i was attempting to make. I'm not hindering his right to education in any way through the methods/suggestions i made. I am merely trying to level the playing field so that he's not getting it harder/easier than the rest of us. He wants uni education? Fair play to him, I'm all for rehabilitation but he should have to go down the same routes as the rest of us. The suggestions i made are actually lowering the cost to the tax payers in the long run.

This is what i had in mind;

Instead of shipping him off to uni several times a week, ship him off to a college to get his A Levels/first tier higher education which is part of the countries free education system. Once he's graduated from college, allow him to go to uni to study what-ever he's qualified for, but make him take out a student loan so that HE forks out the money for it once he's graduated from uni and in full time work.

This way, he's got to go through the same methods as everyone else, so people aren't moaning about him getting it any easier than the rest of us. Plus, it saves the tax payer money because we aren't paying for his uni education. Also, he still gets the exact same education. Everybody wins.

I have a solution and would save us all a lot of money. Sadly, they have made it illegal to kill people in this country. I would not waste a bullet but instead give him a dose of paraffin into his cardiac cavity. Cheap and quick. I know I am not going to make friends with this post but I have to say what I feel about such scum.

I repeat what i think rederic asked. How do you know he didnt do his A levels first?

Here's something for you to read. People can take A levels whilst in prison.




Just one example of where education can make a difference.

I wish people actually read my posts so i didn't have to keep repeating myself. Like I said, "i could be completely wrong." It was pure speculation on my part, which is why i didn't base my entire original post on it. It was an educated guess, based on the fact there was no information on it. The reason i posted it is because there was no definite information on it, therefore there was no definite answer so we could explore the possibilities through discussion. This is a discussion forum after-all.

And i know full well prisoners can study A levels while still in prison, which is why i suggested;

But he was 17 when he was thrown in jail so even if he was studying A levels at the time, and even if he was on track to get 230+ UCAS points, he won't have finished his A Levels.

If you knew he could've taken his A levels in prison, why did you write this?

Micky...I love you

Yeah lets all live in the middle ages.

Do we seriously want the death penalty back in one form or another when our police force is inept at basics such as riot control? When supposed Heads of Intelligence walk around with counter-terrorist agendas on display like they are carrying a copy of The Times? When poor bastards like Sean Hodgson serve 27 years in jail for something they didn't do? Yeah let them kill people instead that'll make all this go away.

Because i was refering to the fact that he couldn't have finishes his A Levels before he entered the prison system, which supported my argument.

Poor bastards like Sean Hodgson who 27 years ago admitted/confessed to the crime that he never did?
Let's let him run free like the like the savage killer at napier uni....sleep well x

This country is going to the wall and it's all the do gooders out there
they started with the kids you can't punish them at school you can't slap their hands and tell them that they are bad
Now look at them nobody can control them
god and the do gooders still can't see what they have done

Yes. The same Sean Hodgson who 27 years ago confessed to hundreds of crimes that he didn't commit including 2 other murders. He was what is known as a serial confessor, someone who feels compelled to confess to crimes that they didn't commit. The police knew this & ignored every one, except the one he was found guilty of.
Perhaps you would have preferred he'd been executed & then found out that he couldn't possibly have done it. Wouldn't of mattered, would it. Blokes an obvious nutter anyway.

And I might add, the real killer is for all we know still at large as a result and god knows what both the victim's family and Sean's family are going through. Imagine 27 years after your relative was murdered you find out the man they locked up for it is innocent and for all you know the real killer is still at large. 27 years after you put faith in the police to arrest and detain the correct man based on fact and evidence, sadly a confession alone is not enough. I'm not troubled by Patrick Nicols - I know where he is and frankly feel he is little if any threat to anyone, I sleep much better in my bed at night knowing society has given him the opportunity to change for the better.

What would we all prefer (in the absence of the death penalty - it was abolished for a reason) happen with Nicols, leave him to rot out his sentence and come straight out and do the same thing again? Then there would be outrage.

You never know. The real killer of Teresa de Simone could actually be a lecturer at Napier University. Now that would be ironic.

WHY does this man deserve another chance?

Because if you don't try to rehabilitate while they're in prison then they come out worse than they went in.

that doesn't answer my question.

Okay shoe on the other foot - why DOESN'T he deserve another chance?

He broke the conditioning of society (do not randomly kill). He took a life that wasn't his to take, and is now being rewarded for the act.

What message are we sending to people if we reward the act of murder?




Now will somebody please tell me what makes this man so special he gets a better education than an honest citizen?

[quote name='Harlequin' date='Apr 11 2009, 04:37 PM' post='437211']
[quote name='aboutblank1976' post='437210' date='Apr 11 2009, 06:20 PM']
Okay shoe on the other foot - why DOESN'T he deserve another chance?
[/quote]



He's not being rewarded. He's had his freedom taken away for 12yrs, that was his sentence. You may not agree with the length of the sentence, but that's another matter.
The chance of an education is a method of trying to stop people re-offending which, if it works, is a benefit to society. If you do nothing then a sizeable proportion of the prison population re-offend time & time again.This is a fact, not some do-gooders theory.
As a matter of interest, how would you resolve the problem?

Exactly what my point is, he's being given free food and a roof over his head not only that but he is at university. I bet there are so many homeless that would do anything to be in his position.
Plus he's getting the education which half the people my age could only dream of gaining it isn't fair

There are two sides to each arguement and whereas I can't condone the act which this man did,,,, I have to put my hand up and tell you all that I did kill people.
I was an officer in the Royal Navy and during the Falkland War I was responsible for taking several lives. Having become wounded, I joined you lot in civvy street and took a degree in Art. I taught and lectured in Art and modern languages for many years.
Maybe I tried to put back into our society,,,,,,, what I took out?

Micky i'd like to thank you for what you did for us all and i'd like to shake your hand

Okay we know he's been a bad boy, he took a life. Surely in handing down punishment it is part of the lesson of that punishment for him to understand the value of a life? Now when he commited this crime he had no obvious sense of that value, however I feel it kind of an empty punishment if we teach him that by taking a life we take away his. An eye for an eye, tit for tat justice system? Brilliant will be making thieves grab stones from vats of boiling water next, or hacking genitals off of rapists.

Is there no other solution to this problem other than the frankly medieval suggestions made here? The death penalty served to do nothing more than reduce the numbers in prison, even Pierrepoint himself wasn't overjoyed with the whole idea of it. If it was an effective method of crime prevention then we would have only had to send one person to the gallows as everybody else would have been put off.

It's a sad fact that we can't always see justice served on what is often our gut instinct. Last night somebody (agan) ripped the wing mirror of my car, it's frustrating (and by no means as horrific a crime as murder) and a small part of me this morning wanted the hands of the culprit broken with a lump hammer. Would just be contributing to criminality though to carry that thought out, society in effect would punish crime with another crime. The same argument for me presents itself with Nicols. He has committed a crime and been convicted in a court of law. He has gone to jail and served a portion of his life behind bars in a restriced environment (cue "prison life is a doddle brigade") now society is trying to show him that life has a value and that his experience of life thus far is not representative of the truth. Surely by improving his own life he better understands what he took from his victim?

Sure > I am trying to see both sides here.

If I can only try to quote (probably misquote) Mahatma Gandhi ? " An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

Normally, I agree with AB almost 90% of the time but on this occasion I have to take the opposite tack.

I have stood and defended our country on two occasions. My wounds are on the front. I never did a runner from 'would be rapists of your sisters or mothers, or murderers of your family.'

There is no way that such a murderer will put back anything into our society, despite any education which we give to him.

Wise words. Totally defensible and reasoned. Very civilised.


Now tell me, what makes punishment for a heinous crime a "bad thing" ?

Gut instinct...we fight against it all the time in the name of civilised behaviour....I'm beginning (in the later years of my life) to wonder why.

It's not a bad thing. He has been punished, just not the kind of punishment that you want.

Ok, he's been punished...now answer the question that was sidestepped. Why is he now rewarded?

If he's been punished fine, and if you trust him ...fine, let him free, but don't insult the victim by making the killers (sorry ex-killers) life better than the victims.


(I suspect I'm the first to actually mention that there was a victim, for a few pages at least.)

You can accuse me of being judge, jury, and executioner, but be careful, so are you. I've asked for the death penalty of the guilty, you've given a stay of execution and risk the innocent. We all judge, we just give different sentences.

Of course he has received some punishment Harlequin. Yet I don't forget his victim for one second. I don't agree that he is being rewarded by this education we are giving him , , It will not get him anywhere, I think we all understand that. Perhaps we are being too charitable towards him ?
Personally, I think he is a waste of space, money and breathing air that good person could be breathing.

Thats what i was trying to get at. Fair enough allowing him the right of an education, but he should have to go through the same processes as the rest of us the earn that education. It shouldn't just be given to him on a platter in the hopes that greater knowledge will stop him from killing again.

Why is education being viewed as a reward? Is access to a decent education not a requirement for all? It's not a reward it's a necessity, more so in his case. Part of the whole process of putting him back out into society a better person than when he went in. Could we not argue that if this man had a better education he may never have ended up in jail (however, read all my post) During this thread several parties have pointed out that not everyone has fair access to education - so there is a definite acknowledgement of the importance of those without such opportunity to be given the opportunity. If we think Nicols is less entitled than others then we are thinking along the wrong lines in my opinion. Not only would be denying him the opportunity to learn an education we would also be denying him the opportunity to learn from his crime.




Sorry I don't understand that. How do you know that this man given this education will not get anywhere? There are literally thousands of people who have been to university and have lived amongst society who fall far short of my interpretation of a "good person".




Seemingly the biggest bone of contention here is the education that this man has got (or was getting) being considered as at the expense of other parties? Based on that assumption then lets say (purely for arguments sake) that Nicols had attained the correct qualifying grades via the correct educational institutions, ergo we assume he had got the grades at GCSE, successfully achieved his A-Levels and had gone onto university and passed his degree. He had got a job and for a few years was an all round top bloke, clean as a whistle. Then he killed someone. Is it my understanding (based on what is being said here) that this would warrant an assessment of who gets education also? After all he had taken an education that someone else could have and he still turned into a bad apple? If so we had better start looking at the whole system right away - because there are countless numbers of murderers (past and present) who followed the pattern I just outlined.

Exactly so why is that not all teenagers are allowed in university? If it's a right and even criminals can have this education then surely every 18 yr old + should be given the opportunity. For him to hvave the right and for everyone else not to isnt what I would call fair

I don't want to become even more boring than I am but the point I am making is:-

I have 1 boy who is a doctor.
1 girl who is a teacher
1 girl who is studying medicine at Leed Uni
1 girl who is doing 'A' Levels (she has got the concentration of a fruit fly
I've no idea what she is going in for ,,, but
is so funny.)


OK ! I may be lucky that my children never got involved in drugs or crime.
They worked to get their G.C.S.E.'s and further their lives. My girl who is studying to be a doctor is also working behind a bar in Bradford to help her grant.

I am proud of their achievements and never considered advising them to murder somebody in order to get a free education.

You are right to be proud of your kids micky.

But this guy didnt murder someone to get a free education.




It would be nice for all teenagers to be allowed but never in million years will the infrastructure and funding exist in order to do so. So we are actually looking at a wider argument here? The inadequacies of our current systems of higher education in terms of availability.

I can see your argument about the inequalities in higher education this case highlights, but there are much wider forces to consider with this.

I am trying to be sensible about this but perhaps I need a bit of help from the members.


My two girls are entering Uni and I want them to be safe.


When I was an officer in the Royal Navy, I went to several parts of the globe, met interesting people and killed them. It was my job.

Now I want it to be somebody's job to keep the likes of my kids and Rach safe to go about their studies and contribute to our society when they have qualified. Am I asking too much ? Don't think I've missed a wider issue here. We have a young lady member with a genuine complaint and Rach has a right to be very concerned, as would my daughters have.
The philisophy and reasoning of the educational campus should not come in to this. I am talking about a bad person who should not be allowed near our young ones.

Giz a job ? I will bump him off.

Statistically your daughters are at far greater danger from drunk drivers, dangerous drivers, drunks with a temper, rapists, drug addicts & people with certain mental dysfunctions. Are you going to bump them all off?



And what does this then make you?

These were the facts of Nicol's case.



It doesn't seem to me to have been a calculated crime but rather the crime of a drunk 17 year old boy already angry about the damage done to his football shirt & then touched in a sexual manner by the victim.
This doesn't excuse what he did but there were extenuating circumstances.

Since his guilty verdict he doesn't appear to have hurt a fly, or he wouldn't be allowed out of prison.

As stated in the original newspaper article
If other young people are being deprived of a university education, I don't see how this is Nichol's fault. He's not taking someone else's place as I'm sure everyone who qualifies gets to go to uni if they can afford it.






None of this is Nichol's fault. Go & have a moan at your MP or organize a protest.




How are you going to be absolutely sure the person is guilty?
Are you prepared to carry out the execution yourself knowing there could be a mistake, or are you delegating this honour?

Thats exactly my point. If he wants to go to uni thats fair play to him, but he should have to pay his own way just like everyone else. Just make him take out a student loan to cover the course costs, just like everyone else, and i'll be satisfied.

I'm sorry if you think that but your statement is totally untrue. I have a friend who didn't get into university because she didnt get the grades. She's the hardest working person I know and her family is just as well of as mine. So yes he is taking someone elses place. My course has took too many people on and they still rejected people. You may think it's all about money but it's not and if you think he's not taking someone elses place you are totally and utterly mistaken



To be fair none of what we are arguing is 'Nichols fault' apart from what he did. I'm simply saying if people like him have the right to free university education everyone else should be given the chance as well. It's like saying my friend should commit a crime if she so desperately wants to go to university but because she is innocent she's had work even harder than i saw her before to even get to university he is being handed it on a silver platter

I said that everyone who qualifies gets to go to university if they can afford it. Your friend didn't get the required grades & therefore wasn't qualified, or are you now saying that everyone should go to university whether they get the grades or not?
Your particular university course was over subscribed, but did this apply to every university in the country?

OK, I'll give it one more go. Nichol's university course is part of his rehabilitation whilst in prison. Lots of prisoners get rehabilitation in an attempt to stop them re-offending. Rehabilitation can take many forms & include many skills to equip them for life on the outside & become a productive member of society.



Do the maths. It has nothing to do with fairness or your sense of justice, it's about trying to turn around some of the re-offending prison population & making them useful members of society.

http://www.noms.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-pub...ing-action-plan