If Scotland "threatens" independence - so be it. I am not having the tail of 8% wag the dog of the rest of the country as it is currently constituted. I do not wish to see Scotland go, nor to hound it out, but I accept it has a right to choose. What it does not have the right to do is pretend its 5M have got some kind of veto over the 58/59M in England and Wales who clearly voted out.
If it wants to become 1% in a union of 445 odd million, well crack on and become a province of Brussels, and see what influence you get (apart from being the pet Dachshund of Brussels to taunt rUK with I am sure).
Can you point out an occasion post the Brexit vote when Sturgeon has said that Scotland should have a veto over England and Wales leaving the EU? I know hacks on the Telegraph, Mail et al (and even some less dumb commentators) are forever having prolapses over the 'v' word, but that's not the same thing.
'Adam Tomkins, leading constitutional law expert and newly elected Conservative MSP, made the point that Sturgeon’s words should be interpreted carefully, given that there was a huge difference between withholding consent and having a veto.'
Except of course that is not what she was saying. She was explicitly saying that the Scottish Parliament could block Brexit. As she repeated in this article
This is must win for Labour, who must throw the kitchen sink at it.
The interesting question is what will May do? What is worth more - an extra commons vote or Corbyn secure in post?
Morning all,
I think this is a good point. Will the Tories hold back enough to not win and secure Jezza. A loss would start serious questions again for the anointed one, especially if his leadership comes up on the doorstep.
The Tories will play to win.
Whether they will or not is another matter. A lot of the seat is rural and, in the south, it would be comfortably Tory, but cultural and emotional ties to Labour (particularly in the towns) are linked to generations of families and communities and they run very, very deep.
An appalling Labour leader won't necessarily shift that.
Cultural and emotional ties to Labour were strong in areas like Glasgow as well. An increasing disconnect between Labour and the people in those areas, along with scandals such as Falkirk, led to the results we saw last year.
Though the Scottish Independence referendum obviously played its part as well, as did the relative professionalism of the SNP.
A result I got very wrong, as I had assumed that those ties would, at a GE, prevent the rout the polls and by-elections were indicating.
Yes, but you had Scottish independence as an even stronger identity to rally around, and the SNP as a credible alternative.
Neither of those things apply in quite the same way (yet) in the North of England.
We are making an assumption that the Brexit vote will be a key driver, as will Corbyn's remoteness and incompetence, driving voters to back Theresa. They might, but I'm not betting on the conservatives at odds-on in a seat that has been Labour for so long.
"The death penalty is the one thing that would lead me to leaving the UK. I could not live here if it were reintroduced."
Take a look at the correlation between those voting Brexit and those wanting to reintroduce the death penalty (and flogging) in the BBC piece I linked to. The damage is already done I'm afraid. The barbarians are in the ascendancy.
But how can we show respect for the dead without lighting up national monuments and Facebook profile pictures in the colours of the flag?
Or holding up a pencil to show you support free speech. But that support only lasted about as long as it took Charlie Hebdo to go back to publishing the kind of offensive and provocative material it had always published.
Mr. kle4, no idea. I think the legal case is that people who dislike what the Government is/isn't doing just take them to court to try and get their way through the judicial rather than political system.
It's perfectly reasonable, nay, essential, that people be allowed to challenge the lawfulness of government action. Sure it can be frustrating, but the alternative, where a government could act contrary to the law without challenge, is insane. But as a lay person the write up really does look like 'the government might not do what I want' and that's it. Even though that may be the motivation of many challenges, the question still needs to be framed as a matter of law, since it's not for the court to say if something is a good idea, merely whether legally it could be done. Manifesto commitments are not enforceable for instance since if a party wants to mislead or is forced to u-turn its for the public to judge that.
But in this case, just what is the legal basis of the challenge to the consultation ? I read the BBC article, and a couple of the ones it linked to, and was unable to work it out. I get that the challengers feel the government is acting in bad faith, but if that were sufficient basis, we'd need a bigger court system.
Oh, I totally agree - I cannot work out the legal basis either, so I would hope it will be dismissed in short order. But with all respect to Mr Dancer, dismissing such things on the basis of people trying to get their way in the courts rather than the political process is not really workable, since sometimes people lose politically but still have a point legally. On what the article says, I'd be surprised if they do here.
"The death penalty is the one thing that would lead me to leaving the UK. I could not live here if it were reintroduced."
Take a look at the correlation between those voting Brexit and those wanting to reintroduce the death penalty (and flogging) in the BBC piece I linked to. The damage is already done I'm afraid. The barbarians are in the ascendancy.
I suspect it's all a fault with democracy. Perhaps we should allow Northern barbarians just the one vote while Londoners get an extra vote. All luvvies and those in 'creative' jobs like advertising get an extra vote, and anyone who's ever been to a dinner party gets another. That would make four votes for the superior people.
Would that suit?
I would use my one vote to vote against the re-introduction of the Death penalty but with the new voting system, we'd would be bound to win anyway.
"While I am opposed to the death penalty, I believe its return is generally supported when the question is asked by around half the country. It isn't the province of reactionary extremists or, given how many express wanting it back, likely to be supported only by brexiters. "
I'd bring back the death penalty for treason and summary execution of terrorists. No trial, no martyrdom, no glorification. Just being stood up against the wall and being shot and buried in an anonymous grave or thrown into the ocean.
This time it impacts on the Greater Sheffield Combined Authority and whether Chesterfield should be a member (even though the two areas are not contiguous).
Derbyshire County Council successfully complained about the recent consultation.
How this impacts on the forthcoming mayoralty election for that area I do not know.
Mr. kle4, no idea. I think the legal case is that people who dislike what the Government is/isn't doing just take them to court to try and get their way through the judicial rather than political system.
It's perfectly reasonable, nay, essential, that people be allowed to challenge the lawfulness of government action. Sure it can be frustrating, but the alternative, where a government could act contrary to the law without challenge, is insane. But as a lay person the write up really does look like 'the government might not do what I want' and that's it. Even though that may be the motivation of many challenges, the question still needs to be framed as a matter of law, since it's not for the court to say if something is a good idea, merely whether legally it could be done. Manifesto commitments are not enforceable for instance since if a party wants to mislead or is forced to u-turn its for the public to judge that.
There is a problem with the expansion of judicial review over the last decade or so. I think at the root of it was a silly New Labour virtue-signalling law requiring the government to do a 1000 & 1 impact reviews of any law before they did it, and failure to take even one of those into account was grounds for judicial review.
JR has an important role - as you say - in protecting the population, but it is too often used by activists to frustrate and delay the actions of a democratically elected parliament and government
I just want to respond to @foxinsoxuk's comment that one should continue shopping to show a stiff upper lip etc.
I agree that life should go on. But I was trying to make the point that there are more important things than shopping. People being brutally murdered, the grief and pain that those left behind must be suffering now should command our sympathy and perhaps a pause in what seems like an unthinking focus on consumerism. There is a human element here and it would be as well to remember it. This is not "mawkish sentimentality" or "histrionics". It is simply, to me anyway, a reflection that life is precious and more important than the opportunity to buy tat.
I have to side with fox on this one. There is nothing wrong in your view, but human beings are fantastic at weathering tragedy and yet carrying on seemingly at normal, that people choose not to more obviously display their feelings on the matter does not mean they are not sympathetic or reflective, and the sad fact is this world, even close to home, is full of unaccountable sadness and horror, and getting mad at people for not showing sufficient upset is unfair, for how much should they for this, or the next tragedy, or for the thousands that happen daily we don't hear about?
I am not getting mad at anyone. Nor do I prescribe how someone should feel. I was expressing my view. Shopping is not some sort of human right which overrides every other consideration.
That, surely, is where the disagreement is arising. I don't see that continuing to shop is overriding other considerations in someone's mind and heart, necessarily, perhaps they are merely compartmentalising. You may not be mad, or saying people cannot feel other ways, but you are judging them, which we are also all allowed to do - I judge people, regrettably, for what I perceive as mawkishness for instance.
I'd bring back the death penalty for treason and summary execution of terrorists. No trial, no martyrdom, no glorification. Just being stood up against the wall and being shot and buried in an anonymous grave or thrown into the ocean.
You mean like that chap arrested and then subsequently released in Germany?
And to think some people think internment is an assault on the right to trial.
In short: the Remainders have degrees and voted with their heads.
The Leavers left education as soon as they could, and voted with their hearts.
Could we at least append an 'in general' to that statement whether we agree with it or not? Personally, given my level of education (not as high as some on here, but higher than the national average) and lack of concern for things like immigration, I feel I voted with my head against my heart by voting leave.
"Not really, it just shows your moral aversion to the death penalty is flexible."
I disagree. But I would, wouldn't I? The simple fact is that I could not live in a country that has the death penalty. If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it.
Mr. kle4, no idea. I think the legal case is that people who dislike what the Government is/isn't doing just take them to court to try and get their way through the judicial rather than political system.
It's perfectly reasonable, nay, essential, that people be allowed to challenge the lawfulness of government action. Sure it can be frustrating, but the alternative, where a government could act contrary to the law without challenge, is insane. But as a lay person the write up really does look like 'the government might not do what I want' and that's it. Even though that may be the motivation of many challenges, the question still needs to be framed as a matter of law, since it's not for the court to say if something is a good idea, merely whether legally it could be done. Manifesto commitments are not enforceable for instance since if a party wants to mislead or is forced to u-turn its for the public to judge that.
There is a problem with the expansion of judicial review over the last decade or so. I think at the root of it was a silly New Labour virtue-signalling law requiring the government to do a 1000 & 1 impact reviews of any law before they did it, and failure to take even one of those into account was grounds for judicial review.
JR has an important role - as you say - in protecting the population, but it is too often used by activists to frustrate and delay the actions of a democratically elected parliament and government
Admittedly a difficult balance. Justice is not swift I imagine, so it must take up valuable time even dealing with the cut and dried nonsense JRs. The price of protecting the ability for genuine ones to be made I guess.
In short: the Remainders have degrees and voted with their heads.
The Leavers left education as soon as they could, and voted with their hearts.
Could we at least append an 'in general' to that statement whether we agree with it or not? Personally, given my level of education (not as high as some on here, but higher than the national average) and lack of concern for things like immigration, I feel I voted with my head against my heart by voting leave.
-------------
And don't forget that when the over 60s were young, far fewer people went to college than do these days - getting a degree in 'David Beckham Studies' or some such twaddle doesn't exactly indicate a modicum of intelligence.
Correlation != Causation.
In fact I will add: Psychological assessment tools are regularly recalibrated to reflect the mean and standard deviation of the typical population sample. They are continually being recalibrated downwards.
You should also ask Reception and Year 1 teachers what they think of the current intake - their responses will shock you.
On topic, this is a very important by-election. It is the first since Corby that has been in a Labour/Conservative seat. It is the first since the referendum where we can see what impact the referendum vote has had on Labour's supporters in a seat where votes for Labour matter.
We can assume that the Lib Dems will improve on their derisory score at the general election off the back of Brexit. The rest seems up for grabs to me.
Every by-election has a theme. What is the theme of this by-election going to be?
"Not really, it just shows your moral aversion to the death penalty is flexible."
I disagree. But I would, wouldn't I? The simple fact is that I could not live in a country that has the death penalty. If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it.
The UK abolished the Death Penalty in 1965, long before we’d even heard of the EU. Why anyone would think it would be reintroduced is an idiot.
I'd bring back the death penalty for treason and summary execution of terrorists. No trial, no martyrdom, no glorification. Just being stood up against the wall and being shot and buried in an anonymous grave or thrown into the ocean.
You'd enjoy a trilogy i once read about an early 21st century naval fleet being sent back in time to WW2 - the future setting involved a global war against islamic extremism, and the standard approach taken was to not only kill the enemy but sew them up in pig skins afterwards, presumably just to mess with them.
It also had prince harry as a character as a hard bitten SAS officer. It was alright.
I'd bring back the death penalty for treason and summary execution of terrorists. No trial, no martyrdom, no glorification. Just being stood up against the wall and being shot and buried in an anonymous grave or thrown into the ocean.
"That feels like wishful thinking to me from a long suffering centrist Labour supporter. The left and Corbyn will want their day in the sun which means they will, by whatever means necessary, hold on until 2020. After that all bets are off, but I don't see Corbyn giving up the leadership before the election."
I would differentiate Corbyn from the left, as I don't see the left as one cohesive unit. There is the hard left, where Corbyn has his base, but this remains relatively small inside Labour. A lot of people have lent Corbyn their support and could quite easily withdraw it. It is conditional. And if the unions decide he should go, it's game over for him. We'll see.
"While I am opposed to the death penalty, I believe its return is generally supported when the question is asked by around half the country. It isn't the province of reactionary extremists or, given how many express wanting it back, likely to be supported only by brexiters. "
Well this Brexiteer opposes the death penalty, not for soft-heartness (as I suspect you do), or for reasons of efficacy (as many do) but because the state doesn't have the right to decide whether a citizen should live or die. They only have the right to withdraw the benefits of citizenship.
Well, the finest limousine liberals supported Blair the policeman in his idea that summary execution of semi-randomly selected brown people was the way to go...
In fact a number of those of this parish were upset when Bojo gave him the boot.....
What is beyond dispute I feel is that Ms Sturgeon is playing a canny old game with the cards she's got. Brexit is a gift of a "wedge" issue for her in asserting a difference between Scotland and rUK on a matter of huge significance. All these international meetings with the Saltire stood next to the Euro stars in some kind of looky likey mini summits with heads of state or Commissioners etc looks great, and I am sure plays well in Ayrshire. Good luck to her in the sense that she assumes it all plays to her stated ultimate aims. It may well do, we shall see.
That said I for one am not going to be cowed by fear of Edinburgh doing its own thing. That's the quid pro quo of independence, it goes both ways.
Mr. kle4, no idea. I think the legal case is that people who dislike what the Government is/isn't doing just take them to court to try and get their way through the judicial rather than political system.
It's perfectly reasonable, nay, essential, that people be allowed to challenge the lawfulness of government action. Sure it can be frustrating, but the alternative, where a government could act contrary to the law without challenge, is insane. But as a lay person the write up really does look like 'the government might not do what I want' and that's it. Even though that may be the motivation of many challenges, the question still needs to be framed as a matter of law, since it's not for the court to say if something is a good idea, merely whether legally it could be done. Manifesto commitments are not enforceable for instance since if a party wants to mislead or is forced to u-turn its for the public to judge that.
There is a problem with the expansion of judicial review over the last decade or so. I think at the root of it was a silly New Labour virtue-signalling law requiring the government to do a 1000 & 1 impact reviews of any law before they did it, and failure to take even one of those into account was grounds for judicial review.
JR has an important role - as you say - in protecting the population, but it is too often used by activists to frustrate and delay the actions of a democratically elected parliament and government
Admittedly a difficult balance. Justice is not swift I imagine, so it must take up valuable time even dealing with the cut and dried nonsense JRs. The price of protecting the ability for genuine ones to be made I guess.
I'd just get right of the impact assessment requirement!
On topic, this is a very important by-election. It is the first since Corby that has been in a Labour/Conservative seat. It is the first since the referendum where we can see what impact the referendum vote has had on Labour's supporters in a seat where votes for Labour matter.
We can assume that the Lib Dems will improve on their derisory score at the general election off the back of Brexit. The rest seems up for grabs to me.
Every by-election has a theme. What is the theme of this by-election going to be?
Not just since the referendum, but it will be after Article 50 is triggered (legal cases permitting). The question then is will the debate have changed after the start of the process? It will be a different situation.
If Article 50 is not triggered by then - assuming a 4th May election, then the result will have to be seen in the light of that situation and who gains praise / opprobrium for the situation.
I just want to respond to @foxinsoxuk's comment that one should continue shopping to show a stiff upper lip etc.
I agree that life should go on. But I was trying to make the point that there are more important things than shopping. People being brutally murdered, the grief and pain that those left behind must be suffering now should command our sympathy and perhaps a pause in what seems like an unthinking focus on consumerism. There is a human element here and it would be as well to remember it. This is not "mawkish sentimentality" or "histrionics". It is simply, to me anyway, a reflection that life is precious and more important than the opportunity to buy tat.
I have to side with fox on this one. There is nothing wrong in your view, but human beings are fantastic at weathering tragedy and yet carrying on seemingly at normal, that people choose not to more obviously display their feelings on the matter does not mean they are not sympathetic or reflective, and the sad fact is this world, even close to home, is full of unaccountable sadness and horror, and getting mad at people for not showing sufficient upset is unfair, for how much should they for this, or the next tragedy, or for the thousands that happen daily we don't hear about?
I am not getting mad at anyone. Nor do I prescribe how someone should feel. I was expressing my view. Shopping is not some sort of human right which overrides every other consideration.
That, surely, is where the disagreement is arising. I don't see that continuing to shop is overriding other considerations in someone's mind and heart, necessarily, perhaps they are merely compartmentalising. You may not be mad, or saying people cannot feel other ways, but you are judging them, which we are also all allowed to do - I judge people, regrettably, for what I perceive as mawkishness for instance.
We all judge people. Judgment is essential if one wants to behave like an adult. The idea of being non-judgmental, of not exercising judgment, of not being discriminating is a nonsense.
Are you in favour of the death penalty for what he did? Arguable, really....
Death penalty for Sgt Blackman? Nope.
I've always been opposed to the death penalty, the only time I ever (briefly) wavered was when an Iraqi heritage friend explained why he supported the hanging of Saddam Hussein, he's a Human Rights lawyer, and always been opposed to the death penalty, which made it jar.
(His reasoning was that Iraq couldn't rebuild until the Iraqis knew Saddam was never coming back)
Must be a bloody slow day if you're all talking about the death penalty.
It's not going to happy. It's the mother of all strawmen.
Japan has and uses capital punishment, I don't suppose that Roger considers the Japanese to be barbarians.
Japan's justice system is barbaric. I don't think sensible people can disagree about this.
I suspect most Brits consider Japan to be highly civilised, and not in the least bit barbaric, and are quite unaware of how the criminal justice system operates there, and their use of the death penalty.
If Scotland "threatens" independence - so be it. I am not having the tail of 8% wag the dog of the rest of the country as it is currently constituted. I do not wish to see Scotland go, nor to hound it out, but I accept it has a right to choose. What it does not have the right to do is pretend its 5M have got some kind of veto over the 58/59M in England and Wales who clearly voted out.
If it wants to become 1% in a union of 445 odd million, well crack on and become a province of Brussels, and see what influence you get (apart from being the pet Dachshund of Brussels to taunt rUK with I am sure).
Can you point out an occasion post the Brexit vote when Sturgeon has said that Scotland should have a veto over England and Wales leaving the EU? I know hacks on the Telegraph, Mail et al (and even some less dumb commentators) are forever having prolapses over the 'v' word, but that's not the same thing.
'Adam Tomkins, leading constitutional law expert and newly elected Conservative MSP, made the point that Sturgeon’s words should be interpreted carefully, given that there was a huge difference between withholding consent and having a veto.'
Except of course that is not what she was saying. She was explicitly saying that the Scottish Parliament could block Brexit. As she repeated in this article
Note neither of these are from the right wing press.
No, she said in the hypothetical case where legislative consent was required by the Scottish parliament then she would instruct her MSPs to vote against consent as expressing the will of the Scottish people.
She was asked a hypothetical and gave a hypothetical answer.
What is beyond dispute I feel is that Ms Sturgeon is playing a canny old game with the cards she's got. Brexit is a gift of a "wedge" issue for her in asserting a difference between Scotland and rUK on a matter of huge significance. All these international meetings with the Saltire stood next to the Euro stars in some kind of looky likey mini summits with heads of state or Commissioners etc looks great, and I am sure plays well in Ayrshire. Good luck to her in the sense that she assumes it all plays to her stated ultimate aims. It may well do, we shall see.
That said I for one am not going to be cowed by fear of Edinburgh doing its own thing. That's the quid pro quo of independence, it goes both ways.
I didn't mention Ireland at all. However, I suspect they are going to find life (sadly for them) increasingly awkward, as the EU starts to integrate further (as it must to survive - one of my reasons for voting out was that the "status quo", won't last), and it faces up to the fact it has about 1% of the EU's population.
"Apple tax harmonisation" is a foretaste of what's coming down the track, and the painful irony is that there will be no big ugly UK to quietly hide behind to stop this sort of thing, whilst burnishing their European credentials in public. Maybe that's what they want, I don't know I'm not Irish, and if so fair enough, but integration is going to mean less and less influence just because you've got a flag. Ultimately Scotland and Ireland add up to less than Baden Wuettemberg between them in terms of economic heft and population.
The "Apple tax harmonisation" issue is not a good one for us to focus on. It is not about whether Ireland can set its tax rate at whatever level it like (which it can). It is about whether the Irish government can exempt specific businesses from taxation, and remain within its treaty obligations.
The EU treaties allows governments to subsidise specific companies under the remit of regional development. But they are otherwise fairly strict about state aid*. The question is whether Apple getting a permanent sub 1% tax rate constitutes illegal state aid**. I think it is very hard to make the case that it does not.
* NAFTA, of course, contains fairly harsh provisions against state aid. Had Ireland been a member of NAFTA it would not have been able to (legally) reduce Apple's tax rate to sub 1%.
** There is a good case to make that a time limited (say 10 years) tax subsidy would have not fallen foul of the rules. It is the fact that it is unlimited in time and scope that pulls it over the line.
Well yes. Wether he was 'humane' or not is another matter , but he killed someone outside combat.
A few of my friends in the army who have served in the forces, particularly Helmand have chastised Sgt Blackman for his actions but said they wouldn't underestimate the stresses/potential for PTSD
What is beyond dispute I feel is that Ms Sturgeon is playing a canny old game with the cards she's got. Brexit is a gift of a "wedge" issue for her in asserting a difference between Scotland and rUK on a matter of huge significance. All these international meetings with the Saltire stood next to the Euro stars in some kind of looky likey mini summits with heads of state or Commissioners etc looks great, and I am sure plays well in Ayrshire. Good luck to her in the sense that she assumes it all plays to her stated ultimate aims. It may well do, we shall see.
That said I for one am not going to be cowed by fear of Edinburgh doing its own thing. That's the quid pro quo of independence, it goes both ways.
Are you in favour of the death penalty for what he did? Arguable, really....
Death penalty for Sgt Blackman? Nope.
I've always been opposed to the death penalty, the only time I ever (briefly) wavered was when an Iraqi heritage friend explained why he supported the hanging of Saddam Hussein, he's a Human Rights lawyer, and always been opposed to the death penalty, which made it jar.
(His reasoning was that Iraq couldn't rebuild until the Iraqis knew Saddam was never coming back)
That's an appalling rationale.
"The greater good of society means we need to kill Saddam/gays/Jews/blacks/Kippers/other people we don't like [delete as appropriate]"
Are you in favour of the death penalty for what he did? Arguable, really....
Death penalty for Sgt Blackman? Nope.
I've always been opposed to the death penalty, the only time I ever (briefly) wavered was when an Iraqi heritage friend explained why he supported the hanging of Saddam Hussein, he's a Human Rights lawyer, and always been opposed to the death penalty, which made it jar.
(His reasoning was that Iraq couldn't rebuild until the Iraqis knew Saddam was never coming back)
That's an appalling rationale.
"The greater good of society means we need to kill Saddam/gays/Jews/blacks/Kippers/other people we don't like [delete as appropriate]"
The gays/Jews/blacks/Kippers/ have never committed the crimes that Saddam committed
(As I said, I still didn't support the death penalty for Saddam)
I used to be very much in favour of the death penalty but am no longer. I now tend towards my own concept of 'death by prison'. We all die. The state shouldn't get to decide the time or place thereof. But where someone has committed atrocious crimes the state can and should punish them and make the life that naturally remains to them a penitence. By categorically removing the option of parole, ever, for such crimes and removing all hope from the monster then their life is effectively over. They're just left to wait for the end. A death penalty would bring release earlier. Undeservedly. I want these bastards to rot in hopelessness until they eventually die.
I'm not one to blame our cultural views on such things to movies and the like, but sometimes I wonder if we don't help ourselves by making killing absolutely everyone, or pretend surrendering or dressing like the enemy, seem like standard hero badass activities to get the job done. Obviously we want things to be cool, reality would ruin the point, but there is a reason in reality we don't want to do those things, lest they are done to us in turn.
Though the standards rebuttal is 'they would not follow those rules, so why should we?'
Truth is of course that if the perceived need to take unpalatable actions is high enough, all nations go ahead and do it and worry about right and wrong later.
"Any court system that has a conviction rate that exceeds 99% is borken. Japan has, from memory, > 99.5%"
Not necessarily a broken *court system*. At one point, the CPS in the this country was only prepared to prosecute certain crimes if the evidence offered a certainty of conviction.
Are you in favour of the death penalty for what he did? Arguable, really....
Death penalty for Sgt Blackman? Nope.
I've always been opposed to the death penalty, the only time I ever (briefly) wavered was when an Iraqi heritage friend explained why he supported the hanging of Saddam Hussein, he's a Human Rights lawyer, and always been opposed to the death penalty, which made it jar.
(His reasoning was that Iraq couldn't rebuild until the Iraqis knew Saddam was never coming back)
That's an appalling rationale.
"The greater good of society means we need to kill Saddam/gays/Jews/blacks/Kippers/other people we don't like [delete as appropriate]"
I used to be very much in favour of the death penalty but am no longer. I now tend towards my own concept of 'death by prison'. We all die. The state shouldn't get to decide the time or place thereof. But where someone has committed atrocious crimes the state can and should punish them and make the life that naturally remains to them a penitence. By categorically removing the option of parole, ever, for such crimes and removing all hope from the monster then their life is effectively over. They're just left to wait for the end. A death penalty would bring release earlier. Undeservedly. I want these bastards to rot in hopelessness until they eventually die.
"Japan's justice system is barbaric. I don't think sensible people can disagree about this."
Yep - it's torture. Utterly horrific. They end up executing a fair few people who have literally gone mad, don't they?
It's not even the death penalty that is the biggest problem in Japan, the whole way they go about prosecutions and trials of all sorts of crimes is barmy. Japan has relatively low prosecution rates, an excessive reliance on confessions, and a preposterously high conviction rate.
I used to be very much in favour of the death penalty but am no longer. I now tend towards my own concept of 'death by prison'. We all die. The state shouldn't get to decide the time or place thereof. But where someone has committed atrocious crimes the state can and should punish them and make the life that naturally remains to them a penitence. By categorically removing the option of parole, ever, for such crimes and removing all hope from the monster then their life is effectively over. They're just left to wait for the end. A death penalty would bring release earlier. Undeservedly. I want these bastards to rot in hopelessness until they eventually die.
The only change to thatis i would allow those people to have the option of suicide. Save the tax payer some money.
Are you in favour of the death penalty for what he did? Arguable, really....
Death penalty for Sgt Blackman? Nope.
I've always been opposed to the death penalty, the only time I ever (briefly) wavered was when an Iraqi heritage friend explained why he supported the hanging of Saddam Hussein, he's a Human Rights lawyer, and always been opposed to the death penalty, which made it jar.
(His reasoning was that Iraq couldn't rebuild until the Iraqis knew Saddam was never coming back)
That's an appalling rationale.
"The greater good of society means we need to kill Saddam/gays/Jews/blacks/Kippers/other people we don't like [delete as appropriate]"
The gays/Jews/blacks/Kippers/ have never committed the crimes that Saddam committed
(As I said, I still didn't support the death penalty for Saddam)
I know: I was commenting on the so-called "human rights" lawyer who is prepared to run a cart and horses through the laws that protect people from excessive state power to get rid of someone he doesn't like
I used to be very much in favour of the death penalty but am no longer. I now tend towards my own concept of 'death by prison'. We all die. The state shouldn't get to decide the time or place thereof. But where someone has committed atrocious crimes the state can and should punish them and make the life that naturally remains to them a penitence. By categorically removing the option of parole, ever, for such crimes and removing all hope from the monster then their life is effectively over. They're just left to wait for the end. A death penalty would bring release earlier. Undeservedly. I want these bastards to rot in hopelessness until they eventually die.
Internal or external exile works for me (your solution is internal exile). If they are willing to be stripped of their citizenship and exiled from our lands and dominions than that's ok too.
I used to be very much in favour of the death penalty but am no longer. I now tend towards my own concept of 'death by prison'. We all die. The state shouldn't get to decide the time or place thereof. But where someone has committed atrocious crimes the state can and should punish them and make the life that naturally remains to them a penitence. By categorically removing the option of parole, ever, for such crimes and removing all hope from the monster then their life is effectively over. They're just left to wait for the end. A death penalty would bring release earlier. Undeservedly. I want these bastards to rot in hopelessness until they eventually die.
The only change to thatis i would allow those people to have the option of suicide. Save the tax payer some money.
That's been my view for a long time - the proviso being it has to be okayed by the victim/family.
I'd bring back the death penalty for treason and summary execution of terrorists. No trial, no martyrdom, no glorification. Just being stood up against the wall and being shot and buried in an anonymous grave or thrown into the ocean.
You mean like that chap arrested and then subsequently released in Germany?
And to think some people think internment is an assault on the right to trial.
I meant specifically where they are caught red handed like they were in Kenya at the mall. Where there is an investigation required then one should be carried out, but the trial and subsequent execution should have limited publicity.
I just want to respond to @foxinsoxuk's comment that one should continue shopping to show a stiff upper lip etc.
I agree that life should go on. But I was trying to make the point that there are more important things than shopping. People being brutally murdered, the grief and pain that those left behind must be suffering now should command our sympathy and perhaps a pause in what seems like an unthinking focus on consumerism. There is a human element here and it would be as well to remember it. This is not "mawkish sentimentality" or "histrionics". It is simply, to me anyway, a reflection that life is precious and more important than the opportunity to buy tat.
I have to side with fox on this one. There is nothing wrong in your view, but human beings are fantastic at weathering tragedy and yet carrying on seemingly at normal, that people choose not to more obviously display their feelings on the matter does not mean they are not sympathetic or reflective, and the sad fact is this world, even close to home, is full of unaccountable sadness and horror, and getting mad at people for not showing sufficient upset is unfair, for how much should they for this, or the next tragedy, or for the thousands that happen daily we don't hear about?
I'm always quite pleased that we don't go in for the "days of national mourning" one sees in other countries. The St. Diana effect was more than enough for any rational, sentient being.
Mortality applying as inexorably to royalty as anyone else (superior private health care notwithstanding), I think sooner or later you'll be surprised at just how much a taste there is for national mourning. I predict a tabloid-fuelled orgy of it.
Violent deaths and cancer aside, the royals seem remarkably good at not dying. Are we sure they're not Númenórean?
I've always been opposed to the death penalty, the only time I ever (briefly) wavered was when an Iraqi heritage friend explained why he supported the hanging of Saddam Hussein, he's a Human Rights lawyer, and always been opposed to the death penalty, which made it jar.
(His reasoning was that Iraq couldn't rebuild until the Iraqis knew Saddam was never coming back)"
As an actual Liberal (in the old sense), I always cleave to "Justice for All, or Justice for None"
Any fool can give a fair trial to their friends. The test is with the people you really, really hate.
Are you in favour of the death penalty for what he did? Arguable, really....
Death penalty for Sgt Blackman? Nope.
I've always been opposed to the death penalty, the only time I ever (briefly) wavered was when an Iraqi heritage friend explained why he supported the hanging of Saddam Hussein, he's a Human Rights lawyer, and always been opposed to the death penalty, which made it jar.
(His reasoning was that Iraq couldn't rebuild until the Iraqis knew Saddam was never coming back)
That's an appalling rationale.
"The greater good of society means we need to kill Saddam/gays/Jews/blacks/Kippers/other people we don't like [delete as appropriate]"
The gays/Jews/blacks/Kippers/ have never committed the crimes that Saddam committed
(As I said, I still didn't support the death penalty for Saddam)
I know: I was commenting on the so-called "human rights" lawyer who is prepared to run a cart and horses through the laws that protect people from excessive state power to get rid of someone he doesn't like
The laws in Iraq and The United Kingdom are vastly different.
I'd bring back the death penalty for treason and summary execution of terrorists. No trial, no martyrdom, no glorification. Just being stood up against the wall and being shot and buried in an anonymous grave or thrown into the ocean.
You mean like that chap arrested and then subsequently released in Germany?
And to think some people think internment is an assault on the right to trial.
I meant specifically where they are caught red handed like they were in Kenya at the mall. Where there is an investigation required then one should be carried out, but the trial and subsequent execution should have limited publicity.
Under your definition were the Birmingham six caught red handed ?
As JRR Tolkein said: “Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”
I'm opposed to the death penalty not because I believe that there is no one who deserves it but because I believe that we should not be made to participate in doling it out. Or to quote a more august authority than Tolkein: "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord".
Re Apple Tax. Sure, I was being lazy and your knowledge of the detail is greater than mine, but the point I was clumsily making was that, in my view, harmonised tax rates are just the sort of thing that the EU will move onto. If you're big enough and ugly enough in EU terms (Germany, France for sure, and probably Italy, Spain, Poland) you might be able to kick up enough fuss to deflect it a bit (though I despaired we ourselves as the UK really had that much influence if I'm honest). If you're Portgual, or say the Czech Republic, let alone Ireland, Latvia, Cyprus (or Scotland) you are in all likelihood going to get steamrollered. Liverpool can shout all it likes about tax rates but with half a dozen MP's (1% or so) it's totally powerless on its own.
The problem with the Geneva conventions is that they were created at a time when most warfare was : army vs army and both warring countries had facilities and the inclination to treat prisoners reasonably well (if only to ensure reciprocol treatment for their own) and to try and avoid unnecessary casualties.
However we are now in an era where at least one of the combatants is not a political but a religious construct (even if it is not 'mainstream Islam' the education of its supporters is definitely based on religious indoctrination). Thus they have not signed up to the GCs and the net effect is that the forces against them are fighting with one hand tied behind their back. An organisation that sends lorries into civilian populations with the express intent of killing them does not deserve the protection that the GC gives.
This is not to say that the soldier's reaction went beyond the pale with regard to western views on criminal human rights, however in the military context that we now have it was undoubtadly the right thing to do.
Did not the Lord Advocate submit that the Scottish Parliament should be consulted the other week in the Brexit court case. Consult is not veto sure, but I seems to recall Ms Sturgeon (and Ms Wood in Wales I think) claiming over the Summer there should be some sort of four nation lock on the process? Hogwash: we voted as a UK on an international matter.
It's as clear as a pikestaff that they are doing all they can in Edinburgh to assert Scotland's view in all of this (fair enough - no issue there), and trying to give the impression that Scotland has more power than it does here. Dangling the "threat" of independence if they don't get something to their satisfaction, is the source of that power such as it is. Again no issue per se, it's just I'm not having it as a brake on the rest of us. We voted out down here but a good clear margin without Scotland, we won't be stopped by Scotland, if that has consequences, then that's sad, but fair enough.
You missed my 'post the Brexit vote' bit. Yep, despite constant cries from Unionists about the equal partnership of the Union, the four nation lock thing was never going to be a goer. However at that point even the sharp minds of PB were predicting remain, and all along Sturgeon has been giving the impression of actually exploring all avenues rather than paying barely formed lip service to the idea.
There is no 'equal partnership', there never will be and nor should there be between any one entity and another ten times the size. Nor would there be were Scotland independent.
Re Apple Tax. Sure, I was being lazy and your knowledge of the detail is greater than mine, but the point I was clumsily making was that, in my view, harmonised tax rates are just the sort of thing that the EU will move onto. If you're big enough and ugly enough in EU terms (Germany, France for sure, and probably Italy, Spain, Poland) you might be able to kick up enough fuss to deflect it a bit (though I despaired we ourselves as the UK really had that much influence if I'm honest). If you're Portgual, or say the Czech Republic, let alone Ireland, Latvia, Cyprus (or Scotland) you are in all likelihood going to get steamrollered. Liverpool can shout all it likes about tax rates but with half a dozen MP's (1% or so) it's totally powerless on its own.
Liverpool doesn't need to sign a treaty in order to give Westminster power over its tax rates.
In short: the Remainders have degrees and voted with their heads.
The Leavers left education as soon as they could, and voted with their hearts.
A correlation - or your interpretation of it - which was disproved long ago. Since the closest general correlation for voting Leave is age, most Leavers did not leave education as soon as they could but as soon as they had to because the option to continue was not available.
Perhaps a better correlation for you would be that Remainers tend to be young and dumb and don't think things through properly whilst Leavers tend to be older and wiser and weigh things up more thoroughly.
Are you in favour of the death penalty for what he did? Arguable, really....
Death penalty for Sgt Blackman? Nope.
I've always been opposed to the death penalty, the only time I ever (briefly) wavered was when an Iraqi heritage friend explained why he supported the hanging of Saddam Hussein, he's a Human Rights lawyer, and always been opposed to the death penalty, which made it jar.
(His reasoning was that Iraq couldn't rebuild until the Iraqis knew Saddam was never coming back)
That's an appalling rationale.
"The greater good of society means we need to kill Saddam/gays/Jews/blacks/Kippers/other people we don't like [delete as appropriate]"
The gays/Jews/blacks/Kippers/ have never committed the crimes that Saddam committed
(As I said, I still didn't support the death penalty for Saddam)
I know: I was commenting on the so-called "human rights" lawyer who is prepared to run a cart and horses through the laws that protect people from excessive state power to get rid of someone he doesn't like
The laws in Iraq and The United Kingdom are vastly different.
I'd bring back the death penalty for treason and summary execution of terrorists. No trial, no martyrdom, no glorification. Just being stood up against the wall and being shot and buried in an anonymous grave or thrown into the ocean.
You mean like that chap arrested and then subsequently released in Germany?
And to think some people think internment is an assault on the right to trial.
I meant specifically where they are caught red handed like they were in Kenya at the mall. Where there is an investigation required then one should be carried out, but the trial and subsequent execution should have limited publicity.
Under your definition were the Birmingham six caught red handed ?
I'm opposed to the death penalty from a purely logical perspective. Too much chance of an incorrect conviction:
That said, if as a state I had the power to dish it out then
There is too much probability of reasonable doubt in the German case already to give it, alot of US cases too (Devil's knot trio, and countless others)
Adebalajo/Adebalawi in this country, and the Kenyan Mall attacks would be fair enough - the perpetrators have literally been caught red handed here.
I used to be very much in favour of the death penalty but am no longer. I now tend towards my own concept of 'death by prison'. We all die. The state shouldn't get to decide the time or place thereof. But where someone has committed atrocious crimes the state can and should punish them and make the life that naturally remains to them a penitence. By categorically removing the option of parole, ever, for such crimes and removing all hope from the monster then their life is effectively over. They're just left to wait for the end. A death penalty would bring release earlier. Undeservedly. I want these bastards to rot in hopelessness until they eventually die.
As JRR Tolkein said: “Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”
I'm opposed to the death penalty not because I believe that there is no one who deserves it but because I believe that we should not be made to participate in doling it out. Or to quote a more august authority than Tolkein: "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord".
Yeah, but on a more practical note, you can release people wrongly locked up.
On another practical note, studies have shown juries to demand even more exacting levels of evidence to convict in cases where the death sentence was a possibility than in similar cases where it was not. There'll be exceptions of course but the trend was established. The net result being that some extremely dangerous criminals will have been cleared when they were in fact guilty.
Putting the issue of the death penalty to one side, I'm sure we can all agree with the policy of reintroducing the stocks - a suitable punishment for teenage scrotes who make people's lives a misery.
In short: the Remainders have degrees and voted with their heads.
The Leavers left education as soon as they could, and voted with their hearts.
A correlation - or your interpretation of it - which was disproved long ago. Since the closest general correlation for voting Leave is age, most Leavers did not leave education as soon as they could but as soon as they had to because the option to continue was not available.
Perhaps a better correlation for you would be that Remainers tend to be young and dumb and don't think things through properly whilst Leavers tend to be older and wiser and weigh things up more thoroughly.
That's an oxymoron. By-elections may be many things. They are fun, good betting opportunities and fascinating for political junkies. But important? Not really, especially one in mid-term, which only political obsessives will remember a year later.
"The problem with the Geneva conventions is that they were created at a time when most warfare was : army vs army and both warring countries had facilities and the inclination to treat prisoners reasonably well (if only to ensure reciprocol treatment for their own) and to try and avoid unnecessary casualties."
This is exactly wrong.
The Hague conventions (which Blackman violated) were negotiated at a time when the British Empire was continuously engaged in low level warfare/insurgency on the North West Frontier. The delegates from the UK included military officers who had fought there. They were very happy with the convention as negotiated.
The definition of combatant, prisoners etc was explicitly defined so that the type of prisoner that Blackman murdered was included as a protected person.
Nothing much has changed in terms of the locals behaviour in war (pre-medieval scumbaggery, essentially) :
Putting the issue of the death penalty to one side, I'm sure we can all agree with the policy of reintroducing the stocks - a suitable punishment for teenage scrotes who make people's lives a misery.
Now that we are not allowed to import fruit pickers from Eastern Europe, that's a new commercial opportunity for rotten fruit and vegetables. Synergy!
Ah yes but there's ways and means for a bureaucracy so minded (and Brussels is so minded "ever closer union") to slither its way round these things.
Take the USA drinking age. It's supposedly set, I believe, on a state level, so used to be 19 in N York 18 in Nevada etc. Then the Federal Govt got all puritanical around 35 years ago and decided it wanted to raise it to 21, so they simply withheld highway funds I believe from any state that did not comply with 21.
If it wants to become 1% in a union of 445 odd million, well crack on and become a province of Brussels, and see what influence you get (apart from being the pet Dachshund of Brussels to taunt rUK with I am sure).
You seem to imply that Scotland right now has more sovereignty as part of the UK, than Ireland has within the EU. Do you believe this?
Don't Ireland and Scotland both have exactly the same amount of sovereignty? Both have the choice of being in the UK or the EU, and have chosen accordingly. Both could change that status at any time.
Re Apple Tax. Sure, I was being lazy and your knowledge of the detail is greater than mine, but the point I was clumsily making was that, in my view, harmonised tax rates are just the sort of thing that the EU will move onto. If you're big enough and ugly enough in EU terms (Germany, France for sure, and probably Italy, Spain, Poland) you might be able to kick up enough fuss to deflect it a bit (though I despaired we ourselves as the UK really had that much influence if I'm honest). If you're Portgual, or say the Czech Republic, let alone Ireland, Latvia, Cyprus (or Scotland) you are in all likelihood going to get steamrollered. Liverpool can shout all it likes about tax rates but with half a dozen MP's (1% or so) it's totally powerless on its own.
There's certainly a desire by the French, and some others, to 'ban' tax competition. During the height of the Eurozone crisis, when Ireland was bust, they attempted to blackmail Ireland into changing its tax policy as a quid quo pro for rescue.
The Irish government refused, and said they would rather go bust and crash out the Eurozone than change their tax policy.
For this reason, I doubt the treaties will be changed any time soon. Low corporate tax rates are such a crucial part of the success of Ireland, Malta and others, that none of these countries will cut their own throats. Instead, what's happened is that the French, Italians, etc are all cutting their own corporate tax rates. As the gap naturally narrows, the pressure for change diminishes.
Comments
The death penalty is the one thing that would lead me to leaving the UK. I could not live here if it were reintroduced."
Did you leave the country after De Mendes was shot? If not why not? It was a state sanctioned execution(*) that killed the wrong target....
(*) The police firearms officers involved were given explicit orders to shoot their target dead - *not* to arrest.
Neither of those things apply in quite the same way (yet) in the North of England.
We are making an assumption that the Brexit vote will be a key driver, as will Corbyn's remoteness and incompetence, driving voters to back Theresa. They might, but I'm not betting on the conservatives at odds-on in a seat that has been Labour for so long.
I'd want at least 6/4, and probably 5/3.
"The death penalty is the one thing that would lead me to leaving the UK. I could not live here if it were reintroduced."
Take a look at the correlation between those voting Brexit and those wanting to reintroduce the death penalty (and flogging) in the BBC piece I linked to. The damage is already done I'm afraid. The barbarians are in the ascendancy.
200 lashes should do the trick.
It's not going to happy. It's the mother of all strawmen.
I do. Visiting and living are very different.
:-)
I suspect it's all a fault with democracy. Perhaps we should allow Northern barbarians just the one vote while Londoners get an extra vote. All luvvies and those in 'creative' jobs like advertising get an extra vote, and anyone who's ever been to a dinner party gets another. That would make four votes for the superior people.
Would that suit?
I would use my one vote to vote against the re-introduction of the Death penalty but with the new voting system, we'd would be bound to win anyway.
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/3355.html
This time it impacts on the Greater Sheffield Combined Authority and whether Chesterfield should be a member (even though the two areas are not contiguous).
Derbyshire County Council successfully complained about the recent consultation.
How this impacts on the forthcoming mayoralty election for that area I do not know.
JR has an important role - as you say - in protecting the population, but it is too often used by activists to frustrate and delay the actions of a democratically elected parliament and government
The Leavers left education as soon as they could, and voted with their hearts.
And to think some people think internment is an assault on the right to trial.
I disagree. But I would, wouldn't I? The simple fact is that I could not live in a country that has the death penalty. If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it.
Honestly a man admitting breaking the Geneva convention by killing a prisoner and people are surprised he was convicted of murder.
https://twitter.com/SkipLicker/status/811608783071875073
In short: the Remainders have degrees and voted with their heads.
The Leavers left education as soon as they could, and voted with their hearts.
Could we at least append an 'in general' to that statement whether we agree with it or not? Personally, given my level of education (not as high as some on here, but higher than the national average) and lack of concern for things like immigration, I feel I voted with my head against my heart by voting leave.
-------------
And don't forget that when the over 60s were young, far fewer people went to college than do these days - getting a degree in 'David Beckham Studies' or some such twaddle doesn't exactly indicate a modicum of intelligence.
Correlation != Causation.
In fact I will add: Psychological assessment tools are regularly recalibrated to reflect the mean and standard deviation of the typical population sample. They are continually being recalibrated downwards.
You should also ask Reception and Year 1 teachers what they think of the current intake - their responses will shock you.
We can assume that the Lib Dems will improve on their derisory score at the general election off the back of Brexit. The rest seems up for grabs to me.
Every by-election has a theme. What is the theme of this by-election going to be?
It also had prince harry as a character as a hard bitten SAS officer. It was alright.
I would differentiate Corbyn from the left, as I don't see the left as one cohesive unit. There is the hard left, where Corbyn has his base, but this remains relatively small inside Labour. A lot of people have lent Corbyn their support and could quite easily withdraw it. It is conditional. And if the unions decide he should go, it's game over for him. We'll see.
Well, the finest limousine liberals supported Blair the policeman in his idea that summary execution of semi-randomly selected brown people was the way to go...
In fact a number of those of this parish were upset when Bojo gave him the boot.....
What is beyond dispute I feel is that Ms Sturgeon is playing a canny old game with the cards she's got. Brexit is a gift of a "wedge" issue for her in asserting a difference between Scotland and rUK on a matter of huge significance. All these international meetings with the Saltire stood next to the Euro stars in some kind of looky likey mini summits with heads of state or Commissioners etc looks great, and I am sure plays well in Ayrshire. Good luck to her in the sense that she assumes it all plays to her stated ultimate aims. It may well do, we shall see.
That said I for one am not going to be cowed by fear of Edinburgh doing its own thing. That's the quid pro quo of independence, it goes both ways.
Are you in favour of the death penalty for what he did? Arguable, really....
If Article 50 is not triggered by then - assuming a 4th May election, then the result will have to be seen in the light of that situation and who gains praise / opprobrium for the situation.
I've always been opposed to the death penalty, the only time I ever (briefly) wavered was when an Iraqi heritage friend explained why he supported the hanging of Saddam Hussein, he's a Human Rights lawyer, and always been opposed to the death penalty, which made it jar.
(His reasoning was that Iraq couldn't rebuild until the Iraqis knew Saddam was never coming back)
@SkipLicker Santa's 'naughty list' can be flexible... https://t.co/MbbUBle5qi
She was asked a hypothetical and gave a hypothetical answer.
Yep - it's torture. Utterly horrific. They end up executing a fair few people who have literally gone mad, don't they?
The EU treaties allows governments to subsidise specific companies under the remit of regional development. But they are otherwise fairly strict about state aid*. The question is whether Apple getting a permanent sub 1% tax rate constitutes illegal state aid**. I think it is very hard to make the case that it does not.
* NAFTA, of course, contains fairly harsh provisions against state aid. Had Ireland been a member of NAFTA it would not have been able to (legally) reduce Apple's tax rate to sub 1%.
** There is a good case to make that a time limited (say 10 years) tax subsidy would have not fallen foul of the rules. It is the fact that it is unlimited in time and scope that pulls it over the line.
"The greater good of society means we need to kill Saddam/gays/Jews/blacks/Kippers/other people we don't like [delete as appropriate]"
(As I said, I still didn't support the death penalty for Saddam)
Though the standards rebuttal is 'they would not follow those rules, so why should we?'
Truth is of course that if the perceived need to take unpalatable actions is high enough, all nations go ahead and do it and worry about right and wrong later.
Not necessarily a broken *court system*. At one point, the CPS in the this country was only prepared to prosecute certain crimes if the evidence offered a certainty of conviction.
In fact, some of the more..... entertaining.... brethren of that faith believe that being anti-death penalty is blasphemous.
I've always been opposed to the death penalty, the only time I ever (briefly) wavered was when an Iraqi heritage friend explained why he supported the hanging of Saddam Hussein, he's a Human Rights lawyer, and always been opposed to the death penalty, which made it jar.
(His reasoning was that Iraq couldn't rebuild until the Iraqis knew Saddam was never coming back)"
As an actual Liberal (in the old sense), I always cleave to "Justice for All, or Justice for None"
Any fool can give a fair trial to their friends. The test is with the people you really, really hate.
I'm opposed to the death penalty not because I believe that there is no one who deserves it but because I believe that we should not be made to participate in doling it out. Or to quote a more august authority than Tolkein: "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord".
Re Apple Tax. Sure, I was being lazy and your knowledge of the detail is greater than mine, but the point I was clumsily making was that, in my view, harmonised tax rates are just the sort of thing that the EU will move onto. If you're big enough and ugly enough in EU terms (Germany, France for sure, and probably Italy, Spain, Poland) you might be able to kick up enough fuss to deflect it a bit (though I despaired we ourselves as the UK really had that much influence if I'm honest). If you're Portgual, or say the Czech Republic, let alone Ireland, Latvia, Cyprus (or Scotland) you are in all likelihood going to get steamrollered. Liverpool can shout all it likes about tax rates but with half a dozen MP's (1% or so) it's totally powerless on its own.
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/12/21/twitter-isnt-just-dead-rigor-mortis/
However we are now in an era where at least one of the combatants is not a political but a religious construct (even if it is not 'mainstream Islam' the education of its supporters is definitely based on religious indoctrination). Thus they have not signed up to the GCs and the net effect is that the forces against them are fighting with one hand tied behind their back. An organisation that sends lorries into civilian populations with the express intent of killing them does not deserve the protection that the GC gives.
This is not to say that the soldier's reaction went beyond the pale with regard to western views on
criminalhuman rights, however in the military context that we now have it was undoubtadly the right thing to do.All is fair in love and war.
Lol! Maybe I should've picked another bit of Scotland at random? Dundee?
Skip Licker
A video of a Syrian rebel eating a dead soldiers heart. That's nice... ffs
Perhaps a better correlation for you would be that Remainers tend to be young and dumb and don't think things through properly whilst Leavers tend to be older and wiser and weigh things up more thoroughly.
That said, if as a state I had the power to dish it out then
There is too much probability of reasonable doubt in the German case already to give it, alot of US cases too (Devil's knot trio, and countless others)
Adebalajo/Adebalawi in this country, and the Kenyan Mall attacks would be fair enough - the perpetrators have literally been caught red handed here.
They WILL make mistakes
The right WILL be abused
Innocent people WILL die as a result.
As such we should always oppose the reintroduction of the Death Penalty.
On another practical note, studies have shown juries to demand even more exacting levels of evidence to convict in cases where the death sentence was a possibility than in similar cases where it was not. There'll be exceptions of course but the trend was established. The net result being that some extremely dangerous criminals will have been cleared when they were in fact guilty.
"a very important by-election"
That's an oxymoron. By-elections may be many things. They are fun, good betting opportunities and fascinating for political junkies. But important? Not really, especially one in mid-term, which only political obsessives will remember a year later.
This is exactly wrong.
The Hague conventions (which Blackman violated) were negotiated at a time when the British Empire was continuously engaged in low level warfare/insurgency on the North West Frontier. The delegates from the UK included military officers who had fought there. They were very happy with the convention as negotiated.
The definition of combatant, prisoners etc was explicitly defined so that the type of prisoner that Blackman murdered was included as a protected person.
Nothing much has changed in terms of the locals behaviour in war (pre-medieval scumbaggery, essentially) :
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/9404/9404-h/9404-h.htm
Ah yes but there's ways and means for a bureaucracy so minded (and Brussels is so minded "ever closer union") to slither its way round these things.
Take the USA drinking age. It's supposedly set, I believe, on a state level, so used to be 19 in N York 18 in Nevada etc. Then the Federal Govt got all puritanical around 35 years ago and decided it wanted to raise it to 21, so they simply withheld highway funds I believe from any state that did not comply with 21.
The Irish government refused, and said they would rather go bust and crash out the Eurozone than change their tax policy.
For this reason, I doubt the treaties will be changed any time soon. Low corporate tax rates are such a crucial part of the success of Ireland, Malta and others, that none of these countries will cut their own throats. Instead, what's happened is that the French, Italians, etc are all cutting their own corporate tax rates. As the gap naturally narrows, the pressure for change diminishes.