The argument that 'Guilty men don't deserve a defense' misses the wider context. The reason that Lee Rigby's killers (alleged murderers) should get a defense isn't because they deserve it, most likely. They are almost certainly guilty, and their defense can almost certainly therefore only get a guilty man off a crime he committed. But this (tiny, since their case is so hopeless) harm is massively outweighed by the times the apparently guilty man IS actually innocent. Because it would be so bad to send innocent people to jail we must take on the chin that some guilty ones will get off.
Maybe these two don't deserve legal help, but we have to give it to them anyway so we don't withold it from innocent people who have been wrongfully charged.
EDIT: Of course, there is a slim chance that these two men are in fact the innocent men whom I'm describing. I'm not saying they are guilty, just that even if they are (and the evidence is pretty strong) they should still have a defense. Because this trial can't be isolated, we have to have the same rules for everyone. So if we want miscarriages of justice to be avoided, we need to give guilty men and women proper lawyers too.
I hold you Guilty; guilty of idiocy. Perhaps you won't believe these islamist thugs are guilty until your own head is under the machete.
The argument that 'Guilty men don't deserve a defense' misses the wider context. The reason that Lee Rigby's killers (alleged murderers) should get a defense isn't because they deserve it, most likely. They are almost certainly guilty, and their defense can almost certainly therefore only get a guilty man off a crime he committed. But this (tiny, since their case is so hopeless) harm is massively outweighed by the times the apparently guilty man IS actually innocent. Because it would be so bad to send innocent people to jail we must take on the chin that some guilty ones will get off.
Maybe these two don't deserve legal help, but we have to give it to them anyway so we don't withold it from innocent people who have been wrongfully charged.
EDIT: Of course, there is a slim chance that these two men are in fact the innocent men whom I'm describing. I'm not saying they are guilty, just that even if they are (and the evidence is pretty strong) they should still have a defense. Because this trial can't be isolated, we have to have the same rules for everyone. So if we want miscarriages of justice to be avoided, we need to give guilty men and women proper lawyers too.
I hold you Guilty; guilty of idiocy. Perhaps you won't believe these islamist thugs are guilty until your own head is under the machete.
I hold you guilty of appalling idiocy. Perhaps you won't believe in the rule of law until you are fitted up by the authorities.
The last hour on this thread has been truly appalling. This trial (and the one of the marines) is what sets us apart from the very people you seem to hate.
Treating people as guilty upfront would result in the sort of infrastructure that, even if the intentions were somehow honourable, could be used by naughty people to torture innocent people that for whatever reason, the naughty people just didn't like.
Shouldn't need saying given we're in a century that follows the twentieth but hey-ho.
@isam Quite apart from it being completely wrong to torture people, no matter what they have done, why do you want to imprison lawyers for doing their jobs?
It being wrong is your opinion, not a fact. I think it is wrong to torture almost anybody, except killers where there is no disputing their guilt. It would act as a deterrent for would be terrorists
Defending traitors should be a punishable offence
That's what they do in the countries these Islamic terrorists want the UK to become. Why let them win so easily?
I don't want to be argumentative or provocative, but I think punishment for hacking someones head off as an act of terrorism should be more than a custodial sentence.
Im not saying torture should be the punishment for murder in general.
If that's what they do in Islamic countries though, then I think they've got it right.
@isam Quite apart from it being completely wrong to torture people, no matter what they have done, why do you want to imprison lawyers for doing their jobs?
It being wrong is your opinion, not a fact. I think it is wrong to torture almost anybody, except killers where there is no disputing their guilt. It would act as a deterrent for would be terrorists
Defending traitors should be a punishable offence
That has to be the worst bit of trolling I've seen on here in a long time.
By your logic the defending counsels in the likes of the Birmingham Six trials would have been punished.
No, because there was always a chance that those six were innocent, whereas there is no chance that these two didn't do what they are accused of
@isam Quite apart from it being completely wrong to torture people, no matter what they have done, why do you want to imprison lawyers for doing their jobs?
It being wrong is your opinion, not a fact. I think it is wrong to torture almost anybody, except killers where there is no disputing their guilt. It would act as a deterrent for would be terrorists
Defending traitors should be a punishable offence
That has to be the worst bit of trolling I've seen on here in a long time.
By your logic the defending counsels in the likes of the Birmingham Six trials would have been punished.
No, because there was always a chance that those six were innocent, whereas there is no chance that these two didn't do what they are accused of
Look up some of the miscarriages of justice that have occurred in the UK over the years. You'd be amazed at how rock-solid cases turned out to be mistaken, and on occasion how far the police have gone to create rock-solid cases out of thin air when they became a bit too eager to get their man.
@isam Quite apart from it being completely wrong to torture people, no matter what they have done, why do you want to imprison lawyers for doing their jobs?
Defending traitors should be a punishable offence
Does that include accused traitors who are in fact innocent . You are a fool !!
Defending the indefensable is wrong in my book. Its impossible for this pair to be innocent.
@isam Quite apart from it being completely wrong to torture people, no matter what they have done, why do you want to imprison lawyers for doing their jobs?
It being wrong is your opinion, not a fact. I think it is wrong to torture almost anybody, except killers where there is no disputing their guilt. It would act as a deterrent for would be terrorists
Defending traitors should be a punishable offence
That has to be the worst bit of trolling I've seen on here in a long time.
By your logic the defending counsels in the likes of the Birmingham Six trials would have been punished.
No, because there was always a chance that those six were innocent, whereas there is no chance that these two didn't do what they are accused of
That is for the jury to decide. That is our legal system.
I can assure you, that if this discussion had been happening 40 years ago, there would be someone saying that Irish terrorists don't deserve legal representation, and that the Birmingham Six should hang.
I would also point out that one thing we've learnt from Pleb-gate is that the police aren't always perfect. There is a reason why we separate the courts from the police.
There used to be a great list on Wikipedia of around 15 people held in Guantanamo bay with "owning a Casio F-91W watch," as one of the reasons for their continued containment. It's gone now, with only passing references to it on the F-91W page.
It's a good watch with about the best price-performance ratio of any watch, but Al Qaeda apparently like it because it's cheap, and can be used in bomb making.
@isam Quite apart from it being completely wrong to torture people, no matter what they have done, why do you want to imprison lawyers for doing their jobs?
It being wrong is your opinion, not a fact. I think it is wrong to torture almost anybody, except killers where there is no disputing their guilt. It would act as a deterrent for would be terrorists
Defending traitors should be a punishable offence
That's what they do in the countries these Islamic terrorists want the UK to become. Why let them win so easily?
I don't want to be argumentative or provocative, but I think punishment for hacking someones head off as an act of terrorism should be more than a custodial sentence.
Im not saying torture should be the punishment for murder in general.
If that's what they do in Islamic countries though, then I think they've got it right.
The problem with torture is that it ends up f*cking up the person that does the torturing.
@isam Quite apart from it being completely wrong to torture people, no matter what they have done, why do you want to imprison lawyers for doing their jobs?
It being wrong is your opinion, not a fact. I think it is wrong to torture almost anybody, except killers where there is no disputing their guilt. It would act as a deterrent for would be terrorists
Defending traitors should be a punishable offence
That has to be the worst bit of trolling I've seen on here in a long time.
By your logic the defending counsels in the likes of the Birmingham Six trials would have been punished.
No, because there was always a chance that those six were innocent, whereas there is no chance that these two didn't do what they are accused of
That is for the jury to decide. That is our legal system.
I can assure you, that if this discussion had been happening 40 years ago, there would be someone saying that Irish terrorists don't deserve legal representation, and that the Birmingham Six should hang.
I would also point out that one thing we've learnt from Pleb-gate is that the police aren't always perfect. There is a reason why we separate the courts from the police.
I agree with you, but this case is unprecedented isn't it?
They did it, there is no doubt, and they wanted to be seen to have done it... that's why I think it calls for special punishment
May you have many more years of such happy evenings Nick!
A beautifully double-edged wish! Thank you.
My favourite anecdote of insatiable demands on time was a call that I had from a constituent the evening before I got married.
Constituent: "I've got a problem with my builder, who I think is acting illegally in refusing to repair his shoddy work. Can you look into the exact wording of the law, please?" Me: I'll be glad to, but I'm away on honeymoon for two weeks. I'll check the law for you the day after I get back. Constituent (speaking slowly, as one who explains the obvious to a small child): "You don't understand. You cannot go on honeymoon tomorrow - maybe the day after. First, I need your help to clarify the law."
And I thought my clients were unreasonable.
When my wife was taking her time about producing our first child I had problems with my diary. I had a proof the next day when the moment came. Before I took her to hospital I raced over to the office (in another town) to write a detailed note about what had to be done the next day. Having done this I came back and took her to the hospital.
You look back on these events and wonder. I have no recollection what that case was about. I will remember the day my daughter was born for the rest of my life.
@isam Quite apart from it being completely wrong to torture people, no matter what they have done, why do you want to imprison lawyers for doing their jobs?
It being wrong is your opinion, not a fact. I think it is wrong to torture almost anybody, except killers where there is no disputing their guilt. It would act as a deterrent for would be terrorists
Defending traitors should be a punishable offence
That has to be the worst bit of trolling I've seen on here in a long time.
By your logic the defending counsels in the likes of the Birmingham Six trials would have been punished.
No, because there was always a chance that those six were innocent, whereas there is no chance that these two didn't do what they are accused of
That is for the jury to decide. That is our legal system.
I can assure you, that if this discussion had been happening 40 years ago, there would be someone saying that Irish terrorists don't deserve legal representation, and that the Birmingham Six should hang.
I would also point out that one thing we've learnt from Pleb-gate is that the police aren't always perfect. There is a reason why we separate the courts from the police.
I agree with you, but this case is unprecedented isn't it?
They did it, there is no doubt, and they wanted to be seen to have done it... that's why I think it calls for special punishment
There is a reason why have a system. Of course, some bits are unedifying, and it makes everyone mad to hear anyone (let alone someone we're paying) justifying the torture of an innocent man. But we have a system because arbitrary justice is worse, by and large.
The legal system we have *requires* barristers to defend people if they're accused. The man representing them could have no more refused than a doctor could refuse to treat Hitler.
And if we were to agree that unprecedented cases required unprecedented measures, then who would make that call?
My clients are pretty reasonable, in that they will expect the earth most of the time but realise that there are some occasions when other things take priority.
My most City lawyer moment ever was declining morphine at 4am on a Sunday morning when I had acute appendicitis long enough to phone the US lawyer working with me on a deal to let him know that from this point on it would be covered by one of my colleagues.
There is an argument to be had about torture, or at least corporal punishment. Why is the mental torture that is long-term imprisonment deemed acceptable, in the west, but the physical torture that is the whip, or the rack, or whatever, deemed unacceptable?
Both hurt. Arguably the former can be more damaging, holistically, than the latter.
It seems to be another of those fastidious, contemporary moral contradictions; the same way we will happily murder thousands (often innocent) at a distance, with bombs, but flinch at killing a convicted murderer, near at hand, with a noose.
A friend on mine had the idea that a prosecutor could only ever call for a death sentence, and the judge impose one, in the event both were comfortable with being bumped off themselves if it turned out that they had hanged an innocent man.
@isam Quite apart from it being completely wrong to torture people, no matter what they have done, why do you want to imprison lawyers for doing their jobs?
It being wrong is your opinion, not a fact. I think it is wrong to torture almost anybody, except killers where there is no disputing their guilt. It would act as a deterrent for would be terrorists
Defending traitors should be a punishable offence
That has to be the worst bit of trolling I've seen on here in a long time.
By your logic the defending counsels in the likes of the Birmingham Six trials would have been punished.
No, because there was always a chance that those six were innocent, whereas there is no chance that these two didn't do what they are accused of
That is for the jury to decide. That is our legal system.
I can assure you, that if this discussion had been happening 40 years ago, there would be someone saying that Irish terrorists don't deserve legal representation, and that the Birmingham Six should hang.
I would also point out that one thing we've learnt from Pleb-gate is that the police aren't always perfect. There is a reason why we separate the courts from the police.
I agree with you, but this case is unprecedented isn't it?
They did it, there is no doubt, and they wanted to be seen to have done it... that's why I think it calls for special punishment
There is a reason why have a system. Of course, some bits are unedifying, and it makes everyone mad to hear anyone (let alone someone we're paying) justifying the torture of an innocent man. But we have a system because arbitrary justice is worse, by and large.
The legal system we have *requires* barristers to defend people if they're accused. The man representing them could have no more refused than a doctor could refuse to treat Hitler.
And if we were to agree that unprecedented cases required unprecedented measures, then who would make that call?
Ok maybe I ll retract the lawyer part, although I don't think much of him
But my point about torture is it should only be used as punishment in cases like this, where terrorists commit such an act so blatantly to get publicity.. so the Birmingham Six point made by @TheScreamingEagles doesnt apply
Boris Johnson to serve full second term as Mayor 1/3 Boris Johnson not to serve full second term 2/1 Boris Johnson to become a Westminster MP before next general election 3/1
"The laws of God and man both give the party an opportunity to make his defence, if he has any. I remember to have heard it observed by a very learned man upon such an occasion, that even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence. Adam (says God), where art thou? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? And the same question was put to Eve also." The King v. Chancellor, &c. of the University of Cambridge (1723), 1 Str. 566.
@isam Quite apart from it being completely wrong to torture people, no matter what they have done, why do you want to imprison lawyers for doing their jobs?
It being wrong is your opinion, not a fact. I think it is wrong to torture almost anybody, except killers where there is no disputing their guilt. It would act as a deterrent for would be terrorists
Defending traitors should be a punishable offence
That has to be the worst bit of trolling I've seen on here in a long time.
By your logic the defending counsels in the likes of the Birmingham Six trials would have been punished.
No, because there was always a chance that those six were innocent, whereas there is no chance that these two didn't do what they are accused of
That is for the jury to decide. That is our legal system.
I can assure you, that if this discussion had been happening 40 years ago, there would be someone saying that Irish terrorists don't deserve legal representation, and that the Birmingham Six should hang.
I would also point out that one thing we've learnt from Pleb-gate is that the police aren't always perfect. There is a reason why we separate the courts from the police.
I agree with you, but this case is unprecedented isn't it?
They did it, there is no doubt, and they wanted to be seen to have done it... that's why I think it calls for special punishment
There is a reason why have a system. Of course, some bits are unedifying, and it makes everyone mad to hear anyone (let alone someone we're paying) justifying the torture of an innocent man. But we have a system because arbitrary justice is worse, by and large.
The legal system we have *requires* barristers to defend people if they're accused. The man representing them could have no more refused than a doctor could refuse to treat Hitler.
And if we were to agree that unprecedented cases required unprecedented measures, then who would make that call?
Ok maybe I ll retract the lawyer part, although I don't think much of him
But my point about torture is it should only be used as punishment in cases like this, where terrorists commit such an act so blatantly to get publicity.. so the Birmingham Six point made by @TheScreamingEagles doesnt apply
When you're in a hole, stop digging.
I've read some reactionary stuff in my time.
I guess you'd be cheering when the police shot Jean Charles de Menezes.
Whilst we have a police that have a history of lying, fitting up innocent people on an industrial scale, from Hillsborough, The likes of Birmingham Six, Stefan Kiszko and BBC compliance over The Battle of Ogreave, your proposals are not only stupid, they are dangerous.
There is an argument to be had about torture, or at least corporal punishment. Why is the mental torture that is long-term imprisonment deemed acceptable, in the west, but the physical torture that is the whip, or the rack, or whatever, deemed unacceptable?
Both hurt. Arguably the former can be more damaging, holistically, than the latter.
It seems to be another of those fastidious, contemporary moral contradictions; the same way we will happily murder thousands (often innocent) at a distance, with bombs, but flinch at killing a convicted murderer, near at hand, with a noose.
A friend on mine had the idea that a prosecutor could only ever call for a death sentence, and the judge impose one, in the event both were comfortable with being bumped off themselves if it turned out that they had hanged an innocent man.
That is to misunderstand the functions of a judge. They are impartial. The law of the land, as defined by parliament, sets the penalty, and the executioner carries it out as a functionary of the State.
I seem to recall that Norman Birkett, as humane and compassionate judge who ever sat on the bench, passed sentence of death on Duncan Scott-Ford for Treachery in 1942. He later said he felt no emotion at all, as the role of the judge is "too remote"....
@isam Quite apart from it being completely wrong to torture people, no matter what they have done, why do you want to imprison lawyers for doing their jobs?
It being wrong is your opinion, not a fact. I think it is wrong to torture almost anybody, except killers where there is no disputing their guilt. It would act as a deterrent for would be terrorists
Defending traitors should be a punishable offence
That has to be the worst bit of trolling I've seen on here in a long time.
By your logic the defending counsels in the likes of the Birmingham Six trials would have been punished.
No, because there was always a chance that those six were innocent, whereas there is no chance that these two didn't do what they are accused of
That is for the jury to decide. That is our legal system.
I can assure you, that if this discussion had been happening 40 years ago, there would be someone saying that Irish terrorists don't deserve legal representation, and that the Birmingham Six should hang.
I would also point out that one thing we've learnt from Pleb-gate is that the police aren't always perfect. There is a reason why we separate the courts from the police.
I agree with you, but this case is unprecedented isn't it?
They did it, there is no doubt, and they wanted to be seen to have done it... that's why I think it calls for special punishment
There is a reason why have a system. Of course, some bits are unedifying, and it makes everyone mad to hear anyone (let alone someone we're paying) justifying the torture of an innocent man. But we have a system because arbitrary justice is worse, by and large.
The legal system we have *requires* barristers to defend people if they're accused. The man representing them could have no more refused than a doctor could refuse to treat Hitler.
And if we were to agree that unprecedented cases required unprecedented measures, then who would make that call?
Ok maybe I ll retract the lawyer part, although I don't think much of him
But my point about torture is it should only be used as punishment in cases like this, where terrorists commit such an act so blatantly to get publicity.. so the Birmingham Six point made by @TheScreamingEagles doesnt apply
When you're in a hole, stop digging.
I've read some reactionary stuff in my time.
I guess you'd be cheering when the police shot Jean Charles de Menezes.
Whilst we have a police that have a history of lying, fitting up innocent people on an industrial scale, from Hillsborough, The likes of Birmingham Six, Stefan Kiszko and BBC compliance over The Battle of Ogreave, your proposals are not only stupid, they are dangerous.
Im not in a hole or digging.
Was Jean Charles de Menezes seen in broad daylight killing someone, a crime to which he admitted/boasted of live on tv for full effect?
We both know the answer, and therefore that it is obvious that I wouldnt applaud his death, so if you had any honour youd apologize for insinuating that
There is an argument to be had about torture, or at least corporal punishment. Why is the mental torture that is long-term imprisonment deemed acceptable, in the west, but the physical torture that is the whip, or the rack, or whatever, deemed unacceptable?
Both hurt. Arguably the former can be more damaging, holistically, than the latter.
It seems to be another of those fastidious, contemporary moral contradictions; the same way we will happily murder thousands (often innocent) at a distance, with bombs, but flinch at killing a convicted murderer, near at hand, with a noose.
A friend on mine had the idea that a prosecutor could only ever call for a death sentence, and the judge impose one, in the event both were comfortable with being bumped off themselves if it turned out that they had hanged an innocent man.
That is to misunderstand the functions of a judge. They are impartial. The law of the land, as defined by parliament, sets the penalty, and the executioner carries it out as a functionary of the State.
I seem to recall that Norman Birkett, as humane and compassionate judge who ever sat on the bench, passed sentence of death on Duncan Scott-Ford for Treachery in 1942. He later said he felt no emotion at all, as the role of the judge is "too remote"....
There is a legend in Parliament House that when the appeal against the death penalty for the last man hanged in Scotland called before the High Court the Lord Justice General asked "Is this case going to take long? We have a really interesting trust case this afternoon."
I have spoken to some who claimed to be there and heard it. Of course judges that served in the war tended to have a different attitude.
It really did not hold back and some of was as uncomfortable viewing as I have had for a long time. The problem that some of the information obtained by what was torture by any definition was worth having increased the moral complexity of the piece.
A film worth watching for those who haven't see it.
Under the jackboot of various human rights tosh you probably wouldn't be allowed to set up a penal colony on say South Georgia. Would be a cracking deterrent though.
Plus, if they are undeniably guilty then they'll be convicted and justice will be done. So what's the issue?
Im not saying they should be tortured to get info out of them, I mean when they are convicted, their punishment should be daily torture
And being locked away from family and friends for the rest of their life isn't "torture" enough?
Not when you've cut someones head off in broad daylight to make a point
Nice. We need to be morally superior to criminals. Not lower ourselves to their level. I find yours views on torture repulsive.
I'm slightly surprised, and just a bit concerned, that there wasn't a "defence" of insanity. Although I haven't been following the case particularly closely.
I would guess that quite a few Islamic scholars could be called to give evidence that such acts were not "Islamic", After all, Muslims, Jews, Christians and other religions have lived side by side, and in peace, in many places for many of the last 500-600 years.
Mr Moderator, hope I'm not transgressing in any way.
@isam Quite apart from it being completely wrong to torture people, no matter what they have done, why do you want to imprison lawyers for doing their jobs?
That has to be the worst bit of trolling I've seen on here in a long time.
By your logic the defending counsels in the likes of the Birmingham Six trials would have been punished.
No, because there was always a chance that those six were innocent, whereas there is no chance that these two didn't do what they are accused of
That is for the jury to decide. That is our legal system.
I can assure you, that if this discussion had been happening 40 years ago, there would be someone saying that Irish terrorists don't deserve legal representation, and that the Birmingham Six should hang.
I would also point out that one thing we've learnt from Pleb-gate is that the police aren't always perfect. There is a reason why we separate the courts from the police.
I agree with you, but this case is unprecedented isn't it?
They did it, there is no doubt, and they wanted to be seen to have done it... that's why I think it calls for special punishment
There is a reason why have a system. Of course, some bits are unedifying, and it makes everyone mad to hear anyone (let alone someone we're paying) justifying the torture of an innocent man. But we have a system because arbitrary justice is worse, by and large.
The legal system we have *requires* barristers to defend people if they're accused. The man representing them could have no more refused than a doctor could refuse to treat Hitler.
And if we were to agree that unprecedented cases required unprecedented measures, then who would make that call?
Ok maybe I ll retract the lawyer part, although I don't think much of him
But my point about torture is it should only be used as punishment in cases like this, where terrorists commit such an act so blatantly to get publicity.. so the Birmingham Six point made by @TheScreamingEagles doesnt apply
When you're in a hole, stop digging.
I've read some reactionary stuff in my time.
I guess you'd be cheering when the police shot Jean Charles de Menezes.
Whilst we have a police that have a history of lying, fitting up innocent people on an industrial scale, from Hillsborough, The likes of Birmingham Six, Stefan Kiszko and BBC compliance over The Battle of Ogreave, your proposals are not only stupid, they are dangerous.
Im not in a hole or digging.
Was Jean Charles de Menezes seen in broad daylight killing someone, a crime to which he admitted/boasted of live on tv for full effect?
We both know the answer, and therefore that it is obvious that I wouldnt applaud his death, so if you had any honour youd apologize for insinuating that
You're missing the point, either wilfully or not.
The police lied about the motives and actions of Jean Charles De Menezes after they shot him.
He was smeared, add in the fact, he was managed to be shot near the only three London Underground CCTV footage that went missing/weren't working that day
It really did not hold back and some of was as uncomfortable viewing as I have had for a long time. The problem that some of the information obtained by what was torture by any definition was worth having increased the moral complexity of the piece.
A film worth watching for those who haven't see it.
Under the jackboot of various human rights tosh you probably wouldn't be allowed to set up a penal colony on say South Georgia. Would be a cracking deterrent though.
It would kind of suck for the residents of South Georgia. It would also be insanely expensive. Surely there's a large island some way away where the residents would even notice a few extra criminals?
Under the jackboot of various human rights tosh you probably wouldn't be allowed to set up a penal colony on say South Georgia. Would be a cracking deterrent though.
It would kind of suck for the residents of South Georgia. It would also be insanely expensive. Surely there's a large island some way away where the residents would even notice a few extra criminals?
Would it help if the current residents were already versed in the dark arts of cricket?
I'm inexpert. But, to say the obvious, I know that our legal processes and related traditions have been slowly developing, from Judeo-Christian-tribal seeding I guess, over many centuries, hopefully making progress over the long haul by fits & starts. Considering that it's fewer than 100 years ago that women couldn't vote we can hardly claim perfection. But it's our set-up and that's how we do things here. Even if they `know` they're right it is unacceptable for anyone to stomp in roughshod and selectively ignore elements of the system as it suits them. But it happens all the time, and we must deal with that.
Under the jackboot of various human rights tosh you probably wouldn't be allowed to set up a penal colony on say South Georgia. Would be a cracking deterrent though.
It would kind of suck for the residents of South Georgia. It would also be insanely expensive. Surely there's a large island some way away where the residents would even notice a few extra criminals?
It really did not hold back and some of was as uncomfortable viewing as I have had for a long time. The problem that some of the information obtained by what was torture by any definition was worth having increased the moral complexity of the piece.
A film worth watching for those who haven't see it.
Great film!
And yes,torture is a valuable tool in the hands of the interrogator,IMO.
Some innocents do get hurt but sometimes things have to be done in the interests of the greater good.
isam, like it or not, has a perfectly logical point. We will psychologically torture someone by locking them up til they die - a punishment which sends many completely insane.
But we won't physically torture them. Except that we DO physically torture them by caging them - by putting them in small concrete rooms so they can never walk in a straight line (trust me - it is physical torture, I've spent months in prison).
So the liberal bedwetters on here are objecting to specific KINDS of physical torture, not physical torture itself.
Why? What's the bit they don't like? The blood? Or the screams? What about the screams of the insane?
It was more the principle of punishing Defence teams that raised eyebrows.
It really did not hold back and some of was as uncomfortable viewing as I have had for a long time. The problem that some of the information obtained by what was torture by any definition was worth having increased the moral complexity of the piece.
A film worth watching for those who haven't see it.
I think that review says they don't want it to be accurate (clearly there was some compositioning of the agents involved) but admits that it really doesn't know because of the secrecy.
I think it also does the film a bit of a disservice. I can't really imagine the mindset of anyone who thought some of the scenes glorified torture in any way.
isam, like it or not, has a perfectly logical point. We will psychologically torture someone by locking them up til they die - a punishment which sends many completely insane.
But we won't physically torture them. Except that we DO physically torture them by caging them - by putting them in small concrete rooms so they can never walk in a straight line (trust me - it is physical torture, I've spent months in prison).
So the liberal bedwetters on here are objecting to specific KINDS of physical torture, not physical torture itself.
Why? What's the bit they don't like? The blood? Or the screams? What about the screams of the insane?
It was more the principle of punishing Defence teams that raised eyebrows.
No it wasn't. You were all running around waving your knickers at the moon because he suggested torturing guilty people as a punishment. i.e. inflicting pain.
His position is perfectly defensible, as we already do it, mentally and physically.
So it's just a question of degree - how much pain - not a question of principle.
No, you're wrong.
I referred purely to the punishment for defence counsels.
Perhaps we should start punishing barristers that defend rapists.
Then no barrister would defend anyone accused of rape.
Was Jean Charles de Menezes seen in broad daylight killing someone, a crime to which he admitted/boasted of live on tv for full effect?
We both know the answer, and therefore that it is obvious that I wouldnt applaud his death, so if you had any honour youd apologize for insinuating that
You're missing the point, either wilfully or not.
The police lied about the motives and actions of Jean Charles De Menezes after they shot him.
He was smeared, add in the fact, he was managed to be shot near the only three London Underground CCTV footage that went missing that day
The police, with BBC help, lied and misrepresented about the actions of the miners at Orgreave.
The wider media, acted like complete and utter [moderated] over, inter alia, Chris Jeffries,
Your system is based on people that are liars, and have no embarrassment over lying.
----------------------------------------------------------- This is what Im saying...
If somebody kills a person or people in broad daylight, doing so to maximise coverage, make a point and get publicity for their cause then I don't think a custodial sentence is enough and I think torture is an option
Under the jackboot of various human rights tosh you probably wouldn't be allowed to set up a penal colony on say South Georgia. Would be a cracking deterrent though.
It would kind of suck for the residents of South Georgia. It would also be insanely expensive. Surely there's a large island some way away where the residents would even notice a few extra criminals?
A pedant writes. Are there in fact any permanent human residents of the island of S Georgia?
isam, like it or not, has a perfectly logical point. We will psychologically torture someone by locking them up til they die - a punishment which sends many completely insane.
But we won't physically torture them. Except that we DO physically torture them by caging them - by putting them in small concrete rooms so they can never walk in a straight line (trust me - it is physical torture, I've spent months in prison).
So the liberal bedwetters on here are objecting to specific KINDS of physical torture, not physical torture itself.
Why? What's the bit they don't like? The blood? Or the screams? What about the screams of the insane?
Wait! Do I sense someone trying to troll the board?
OK, I'll bite :-)
If there was a man who'd planted a bomb in London, and the bomb was going to go off in an hour, and torture would enable you to save hundreds of lives, then I don't think there's anybody who wouldn't sanction it.
If we're talking about torture as punishment, then it would presumably only be for the most heinous of crimes. In which case the question has to be:
1. Is it a cost effective way of deterring future people committing these crimes? 2. What impact will it have on the person who is doing the torturing? 3. How bad is it if turns out later that we tortured an innocent man, and not with the intention of finding out information that might save lives?
I doubt it will be particularly cost effective, since most people who commit serious crimes are f*cking stupid, and don't think very much about the consequences of their actions. If fear of extremely severe punishment was an efficient deterrent, then US states with the death penalty would have lower murder rates. They do not.
It would clear have severely negative impacts on the person doing the torture. Being deprived of one's liberty might be torture of a kind. But it is not the same as attaching electrodes to the nipples and deliberately causing pain. And the person who does the attaching of the electrodes and the flipping of the switch, and who hears the screams and smells the scorched flesh... well, I think we all know that they will either become so desensitized to violence, or will become deeply emotionally scarred.
Finally, we all know that someone is going to be wrongly tortured at some point. That's a pretty good reason not to do it.
Just watching the highlights. Good effort by Stokes. I think Prior may be at the end of his career unfortunately. Good career but I fear it is over.
Give Foster another go. He's by far the best keeper in English cricket. Furthermore, it'll stop him captaining Essex, where he's not always doing a good job. Keeper yes, captain I'm much less sure!
I didn't think I would be reading people suggesting torture and prosecution of defence counsel on PB!?
I know, I'd be happy with people suggesting torture and prosecution of England cricketers and their coach (except Ben Stokes) though
It was a good effort this morning. I almost started to believe after the first hour.
It would be indeed be torture of the most vile kind if I were to quote here your 20th Nov blogpost prediction for the Ashes.
And so, in the spirit of Christmas and Goodwill towards Men ... I shall refrain
'tis good to see you back posting, though.
I really did think we'd do it. The worst thing is that the Aussie batting still looks frail but our bowlers run out of steam at 5-down and the batting has been shambolic and irresponsible.
"Some innocents do get hurt but sometimes things have to be done in the interests of the greater good"
Ah yes. Stalin's argument. And Mao's. Scratch a lefty....
"I am not advocating large-scale torture to inculcate fear.But I do not oppose torture per se as valuable information can be missed otherwise. "
Best torture a few people then, routinely, just to make sure you've not overlooked anything. Just to be on the safe side eh? Despicable.
However, seeing as you have now outed yourself as an advocate of judicial torture I am interested in your view of the practicalities.
What actual techniques would you advocate? For how long? Adminstered by whom? What if nothing is disclosed, should it continue, after all they may be just be holding out on you. Probably more effective to torture a suspect's love ones, "in the interests of the greater good" in case "valuable information be missed".
Although I don't agree with Sam regarding the defence there was absolubtely no need to make such a wittering and long statement (If the Mirror's transcript is at all accurate).
Gottlieb wasn't doing an after dinner speech or performing a soliloquy in a play for the west end, it is, and was utter guff “the most law abiding terrorist in the country”;
And this line took the kitchen sink and biscuit:
"Do you think this was cruelest, most sadistic ... killing that's ever occured...? It isn't"
Good Lord
"someone can do an evil act but still have good intentions"
Heavens have mercy. Did he want to make it a workshop on moral relativism.
This is why the legal proffession attracts such opprobrium in these cases, because defence QCs love coming out with complete and utter horseshit in cases such as this.
How it will taken him an entire afternoon and morning session to come out with this crap I do not know. The only possible point of argument is whether or not the charging at the police was attempted murder. That bit needs a defence but it should be able to be wrapped up in an afternoon.
Wordy and "clever" references to Shakespeare, Tennyson, Sherlock Holmes. Just how out of touch is this man. He's parked his shame at the door and left it there. The legal profession does good work, my other half was affected in her employment by the various legal aid cuts but the spout of shit that has come from David Gottlieb's mouth has done it no favours today.
"Adebelajo's family suffering as much as Lee Rigby's" - Well that was a disgrace beyond disgraces.
"Some innocents do get hurt but sometimes things have to be done in the interests of the greater good"
Ah yes. Stalin's argument. And Mao's. Scratch a lefty....
I am not advocating large-scale torture to inculcate fear.But I do not oppose torture per se as valuable information can be missed otherwise.
No one sensible can oppose torture in all forms and in all circumstances. It's like the free speech/shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre thing.
As the famous hypothesis has it, if you know that terrorists have a nuke in Leicester Square, ready to go off in two hours, and if you know that your only way of disarming it is to torture the precise location out of your one terrorist suspect, do you torture him?
Yes, of course you do. You could save a million lives. Would the fastidious liberal really save the terrorist and condemn a million Londoners? Pfft. They would torture, too.
So again it is a question of degree, not principle.
Ofcourse.But sometimes one doesn`t know whether the information that could be obtained by torture is gold or dust.Hence the ethical dilemma.
David Gottlieb has defended/appealed (and won) a number of high profile terrorism related cases, I suspect he knows what he is doing (and that is to win)
It may not be pretty, it maybe offensive, but he's doing the best for his client, as past history has shown.
isam, like it or not, has a perfectly logical point. We will psychologically torture someone by locking them up til they die - a punishment which sends many completely insane.
But we won't physically torture them. Except that we DO physically torture them by caging them - by putting them in small concrete rooms so they can never walk in a straight line (trust me - it is physical torture, I've spent months in prison).
So the liberal bedwetters on here are objecting to specific KINDS of physical torture, not physical torture itself.
Why? What's the bit they don't like? The blood? Or the screams? What about the screams of the insane?
Wait! Do I sense someone trying to troll the board?
OK, I'll bite :-)
If there was a man who'd planted a bomb in London, and the bomb was going to go off in an hour, and torture would enable you to save hundreds of lives, then I don't think there's anybody who wouldn't sanction it.
If we're talking about torture as punishment, then it would presumably only be for the most heinous of crimes. In which case the question has to be:
1. Is it a cost effective way of deterring future people committing these crimes? 2. What impact will it have on the person who is doing the torturing? 3. How bad is it if turns out later that we tortured an innocent man, and not with the intention of finding out information that might save lives?
I doubt it will be particularly cost effective, since most people who commit serious crimes are f*cking stupid, and don't think very much about the consequences of their actions. If fear of extremely severe punishment was an efficient deterrent, then US states with the death penalty would have lower murder rates. They do not.
It would clear have severely negative impacts on the person doing the torture. Being deprived of one's liberty might be torture of a kind. But it is not the same as attaching electrodes to the nipples and deliberately causing pain. And the person who does the attaching of the electrodes and the flipping of the switch, and who hears the screams and smells the scorched flesh... well, I think we all know that they will either become so desensitized to violence, or will become deeply emotionally scarred.
Finally, we all know that someone is going to be wrongly tortured at some point. That's a pretty good reason not to do it.
This is what Im saying...
If somebody kills a person or people in broad daylight, doing so to maximise coverage, make a point and get publicity for their cause then I don't think a custodial sentence is enough and I think torture is an option... and in the case of Lee Rigby's killers I think it would be fitting
So it would be impossible for an innocent to be tortured, unless the state fit them up, which they could do now anyway
I suspect experienced security agents have good judgement on whether the suspects are holding back information.For terrorism and mass murder,I wouldn`t oppose any method of torture.
Mr. Fletcher, worry not about a few bad tips. Even the most handsome chap with the laciest and most bell-bedecked garments can get a few wrong.
And it is to your credit, Mr Dancer, that said bell-bedecked garment contains a leg which may be pulled in a good-natured fashion on the subject of tipping.
isam, like it or not, has a perfectly logical point. We will psychologically torture someone by locking them up til they die - a punishment which sends many completely insane.
But we won't physically torture them. Except that we DO physically torture them by caging them - by putting them in small concrete rooms so they can never walk in a straight line (trust me - it is physical torture, I've spent months in prison).
So the liberal bedwetters on here are objecting to specific KINDS of physical torture, not physical torture itself.
Why? What's the bit they don't like? The blood? Or the screams? What about the screams of the insane?
Wait! Do I sense someone trying to troll the board?
OK, I'll bite :-)
If there was a man who'd planted a bomb in London, and the bomb was going to go off in an hour, and torture would enable you to save hundreds of lives, then I don't think there's anybody who wouldn't sanction it.
If we're talking about torture as punishment, then it would presumably only be for the most heinous of crimes. In which case the question has to be:
1. Is it a cost effective way of deterring future people committing these crimes? 2. What impact will it have on the person who is doing the torturing? 3. How bad is it if turns out later that we tortured an innocent man, and not with the intention of finding out information that might save lives?
I doubt it will be particularly cost effective, since most people who commit serious crimes are f*cking stupid, and don't think very much about the consequences of their actions. If fear of extremely severe punishment was an efficient deterrent, then US states with the death penalty would have lower murder rates. They do not.
It would clear have severely negative impacts on the person doing the torture. Being deprived of one's liberty might be torture of a kind. But it is not the same as attaching electrodes to the nipples and deliberately causing pain. And the person who does the attaching of the electrodes and the flipping of the switch, and who hears the screams and smells the scorched flesh... well, I think we all know that they will either become so desensitized to violence, or will become deeply emotionally scarred.
Finally, we all know that someone is going to be wrongly tortured at some point. That's a pretty good reason not to do it.
We already physically torture people, by locking them up in small concrete rooms (often with some other murdering nutter they have never met before) for 23 hours a day, small, bleak enclosed chambers where they can never properly walk or run or relax or stretch out, EVER. I've been there: it is definitely physical torture (albeit of a stealthy and unobvious kind) as well as, of course, mental torture.
So we already torture people, corporeally and psychologically. We just don't like all the messy screamy bloody bone-splitting stuff any more, cause it is out of fashion and a bit ewww.
Do you think the prison warders went into work each day thinking, "hmmm... today I'm torturing Sean Thomas..."?
I didn't think I would be reading people suggesting torture and prosecution of defence counsel on PB!?
I know, I'd be happy with people suggesting torture and prosecution of England cricketers and their coach (except Ben Stokes) though
It was a good effort this morning. I almost started to believe after the first hour.
So did I.
Drop Swanny, Jimmy and Prior for the last two tests, Bring in Bairstow, Balance and Monty
It's very sad but Jimmy has to go. He's fallen off a cliff in the past six tests. That's enough poor performances in a row for anyone.
But I expect the selectors to bottle it with the excuse that Broad is unfit.
If Prior keeps his place, the selectors have just totally refused to take any decisions.
Hopefully the new broom of James Whittaker and Paul Downton will do something.
Lucian is right. We seem to be in a position where people who are playing badly keep their place on past glories. We can't take wickets. We can't bat. Time for a complete rethink. Stokes is a possible future star - at least there is that from this dire tour.
One thing I have noticed on this thread is that seems it is ok after all for Westerners to openly consider themselves superior to Islamic nations on some matters... there goes that moral relativism out the window!
PS I'd just like it noted that I didn't just troll pb today, I trolled the entire nation. My Hate Preacher blog so far has 3k shares (and still rising)
David Gottlieb has defended/appealed (and won) a number of high profile terrorism related cases, I suspect he knows what he is doing (and that is to win)
It may not be pretty, it maybe offensive, but he's doing the best for his client, as past history has shown.
To top it off at the end he spouted off about trial by jury being under threat. Relevance to the case, absolubtely zero. Oh and the cuts. It gave me the deep impression that he believes the claptrap he was spouting in the courtroom.
If he wants to save trial by Jury he could have kept his speech to a couple of hours. Thomas More chambers should cover the cost of the court tomorrow.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25405250
Ed Balls on Piano. I can only admit that my playing was even worse and that no-one recorded it.
The last hour on this thread has been truly appalling. This trial (and the one of the marines) is what sets us apart from the very people you seem to hate.
Shouldn't need saying given we're in a century that follows the twentieth but hey-ho.
Im not saying torture should be the punishment for murder in general.
If that's what they do in Islamic countries though, then I think they've got it right.
I can assure you, that if this discussion had been happening 40 years ago, there would be someone saying that Irish terrorists don't deserve legal representation, and that the Birmingham Six should hang.
I would also point out that one thing we've learnt from Pleb-gate is that the police aren't always perfect. There is a reason why we separate the courts from the police.
It's a good watch with about the best price-performance ratio of any watch, but Al Qaeda apparently like it because it's cheap, and can be used in bomb making.
Der Dichter spricht
Good on Ed, but maybe he should have listened to Alfie first:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkaxYxaTTwM
They did it, there is no doubt, and they wanted to be seen to have done it... that's why I think it calls for special punishment
When my wife was taking her time about producing our first child I had problems with my diary. I had a proof the next day when the moment came. Before I took her to hospital I raced over to the office (in another town) to write a detailed note about what had to be done the next day. Having done this I came back and took her to the hospital.
You look back on these events and wonder. I have no recollection what that case was about. I will remember the day my daughter was born for the rest of my life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAmq6akwTIc
"£3.59 red wine from Aldi voted among world's best in taste tests":
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2149153/3-59-red-wine-Aldi-voted-worlds-best.html
The legal system we have *requires* barristers to defend people if they're accused. The man representing them could have no more refused than a doctor could refuse to treat Hitler.
And if we were to agree that unprecedented cases required unprecedented measures, then who would make that call?
My most City lawyer moment ever was declining morphine at 4am on a Sunday morning when I had acute appendicitis long enough to phone the US lawyer working with me on a deal to let him know that from this point on it would be covered by one of my colleagues.
But my point about torture is it should only be used as punishment in cases like this, where terrorists commit such an act so blatantly to get publicity.. so the Birmingham Six point made by @TheScreamingEagles doesnt apply
Con 2/5
LD 7/4
Lab 66/1
UKIP 90/1
Lab 4/6 (PP)
LD 2/1 (Lad)
Con 50/1
PC 100/1
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-rules-out-standing-as-a-conservative-mp--for-now-9011389.html
Boris Johnson to serve full second term as Mayor 1/3
Boris Johnson not to serve full second term 2/1
Boris Johnson to become a Westminster MP before next general election 3/1
The King v. Chancellor, &c. of the University of Cambridge (1723), 1 Str. 566.
I've read some reactionary stuff in my time.
I guess you'd be cheering when the police shot Jean Charles de Menezes.
Whilst we have a police that have a history of lying, fitting up innocent people on an industrial scale, from Hillsborough, The likes of Birmingham Six, Stefan Kiszko and BBC compliance over The Battle of Ogreave, your proposals are not only stupid, they are dangerous.
I find yours views on torture repulsive.
I seem to recall that Norman Birkett, as humane and compassionate judge who ever sat on the bench, passed sentence of death on Duncan Scott-Ford for Treachery in 1942. He later said he felt no emotion at all, as the role of the judge is "too remote"....
Was Jean Charles de Menezes seen in broad daylight killing someone, a crime to which he admitted/boasted of live on tv for full effect?
We both know the answer, and therefore that it is obvious that I wouldnt applaud his death, so if you had any honour youd apologize for insinuating that
I have spoken to some who claimed to be there and heard it. Of course judges that served in the war tended to have a different attitude.
Innocent men being tortured is the inevitable consequence of permitting torture.
It really did not hold back and some of was as uncomfortable viewing as I have had for a long time. The problem that some of the information obtained by what was torture by any definition was worth having increased the moral complexity of the piece.
A film worth watching for those who haven't see it.
I would guess that quite a few Islamic scholars could be called to give evidence that such acts were not "Islamic", After all, Muslims, Jews, Christians and other religions have lived side by side, and in peace, in many places for many of the last 500-600 years.
Mr Moderator, hope I'm not transgressing in any way.
The police lied about the motives and actions of Jean Charles De Menezes after they shot him.
He was smeared, add in the fact, he was managed to be shot near the only three London Underground CCTV footage that went missing/weren't working that day
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-360051/Tube-CCTV-Was-cover-up.html.
The police, with BBC help, lied and misrepresented about the actions of the miners at Orgreave.
The wider media, acted like complete and utter [moderated] over, inter alia, Chris Jeffries,
Your system is based on people that are liars, and have no embarrassment over lying.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/feb/07/disturbing-misleading-zero-dark-thirty/
Nick Clegg Is 'David Cameron's Lapdog', Says Boris Johnson
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12/17/boris-johnson-nick-clegg_n_4458992.html?utm_hp_ref=uk
Also reminded me what a douchebag Bill Clinton is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ray_Rector
(North America is not an island)
And yes,torture is a valuable tool in the hands of the interrogator,IMO.
Some innocents do get hurt but sometimes things have to be done in the interests of the greater good.
Listen to Sen. McCain: Torture Doesn't Work
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/listen-sen-mccain-torture-doesnt-work
I think it also does the film a bit of a disservice. I can't really imagine the mindset of anyone who thought some of the scenes glorified torture in any way.
I referred purely to the punishment for defence counsels.
Perhaps we should start punishing barristers that defend rapists.
Then no barrister would defend anyone accused of rape.
I wonder how that might have impacted you?
Im not in a hole or digging.
Was Jean Charles de Menezes seen in broad daylight killing someone, a crime to which he admitted/boasted of live on tv for full effect?
We both know the answer, and therefore that it is obvious that I wouldnt applaud his death, so if you had any honour youd apologize for insinuating that
You're missing the point, either wilfully or not.
The police lied about the motives and actions of Jean Charles De Menezes after they shot him.
He was smeared, add in the fact, he was managed to be shot near the only three London Underground CCTV footage that went missing that day
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-360051/Tube-CCTV-Was-cover-up.html.
The police, with BBC help, lied and misrepresented about the actions of the miners at Orgreave.
The wider media, acted like complete and utter [moderated] over, inter alia, Chris Jeffries,
Your system is based on people that are liars, and have no embarrassment over lying.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is what Im saying...
If somebody kills a person or people in broad daylight, doing so to maximise coverage, make a point and get publicity for their cause then I don't think a custodial sentence is enough and I think torture is an option
So lets not lie
Drop Swanny, Jimmy and Prior for the last two tests, Bring in Bairstow, Balance and Monty
"Some innocents do get hurt but sometimes things have to be done in the interests of the greater good"
Ah yes. Stalin's argument. And Mao's. Scratch a lefty....
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/17/government-under-fire-eu-funding-food-banks
And so, in the spirit of Christmas and Goodwill towards Men ... I shall refrain
'tis good to see you back posting, though.
Are there in fact any permanent human residents of the island of S Georgia?
OK, I'll bite :-)
If there was a man who'd planted a bomb in London, and the bomb was going to go off in an hour, and torture would enable you to save hundreds of lives, then I don't think there's anybody who wouldn't sanction it.
If we're talking about torture as punishment, then it would presumably only be for the most heinous of crimes. In which case the question has to be:
1. Is it a cost effective way of deterring future people committing these crimes?
2. What impact will it have on the person who is doing the torturing?
3. How bad is it if turns out later that we tortured an innocent man, and not with the intention of finding out information that might save lives?
I doubt it will be particularly cost effective, since most people who commit serious crimes are f*cking stupid, and don't think very much about the consequences of their actions. If fear of extremely severe punishment was an efficient deterrent, then US states with the death penalty would have lower murder rates. They do not.
It would clear have severely negative impacts on the person doing the torture. Being deprived of one's liberty might be torture of a kind. But it is not the same as attaching electrodes to the nipples and deliberately causing pain. And the person who does the attaching of the electrodes and the flipping of the switch, and who hears the screams and smells the scorched flesh... well, I think we all know that they will either become so desensitized to violence, or will become deeply emotionally scarred.
Finally, we all know that someone is going to be wrongly tortured at some point. That's a pretty good reason not to do it.
But I expect the selectors to bottle it with the excuse that Broad is unfit.
If Prior keeps his place, the selectors have just totally refused to take any decisions.
I'm still umming and ahhing about backing Spurs to finish in the top 4.
OSR ?
SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 666
8:54PM
FattyBolger said:
"Some innocents do get hurt but sometimes things have to be done in the interests of the greater good"
Ah yes. Stalin's argument. And Mao's. Scratch a lefty....
"I am not advocating large-scale torture to inculcate fear.But I do not oppose torture per se as valuable information can be missed otherwise. "
Best torture a few people then, routinely, just to make sure you've not overlooked anything. Just to be on the safe side eh? Despicable.
However, seeing as you have now outed yourself as an advocate of judicial torture I am interested in your view of the practicalities.
What actual techniques would you advocate? For how long? Adminstered by whom? What if nothing is disclosed, should it continue, after all they may be just be holding out on you. Probably more effective to torture a suspect's love ones, "in the interests of the greater good" in case "valuable information be missed".
Your moral compass is truly shot.
Gottlieb wasn't doing an after dinner speech or performing a soliloquy in a play for the west end, it is, and was utter guff “the most law abiding terrorist in the country”;
And this line took the kitchen sink and biscuit:
"Do you think this was cruelest, most sadistic ... killing that's ever occured...? It isn't"
Good Lord
"someone can do an evil act but still have good intentions"
Heavens have mercy. Did he want to make it a workshop on moral relativism.
This is why the legal proffession attracts such opprobrium in these cases, because defence QCs love coming out with complete and utter horseshit in cases such as this.
How it will taken him an entire afternoon and morning session to come out with this crap I do not know. The only possible point of argument is whether or not the charging at the police was attempted murder. That bit needs a defence but it should be able to be wrapped up in an afternoon.
Wordy and "clever" references to Shakespeare, Tennyson, Sherlock Holmes. Just how out of touch is this man. He's parked his shame at the door and left it there. The legal profession does good work, my other half was affected in her employment by the various legal aid cuts but the spout of shit that has come from David Gottlieb's mouth has done it no favours today.
"Adebelajo's family suffering as much as Lee Rigby's" - Well that was a disgrace beyond disgraces.
Mr. Fletcher, worry not about a few bad tips. Even the most handsome chap with the laciest and most bell-bedecked garments can get a few wrong.
David Gottlieb has defended/appealed (and won) a number of high profile terrorism related cases, I suspect he knows what he is doing (and that is to win)
It may not be pretty, it maybe offensive, but he's doing the best for his client, as past history has shown.
I'm just happy you're still talking to me.
If somebody kills a person or people in broad daylight, doing so to maximise coverage, make a point and get publicity for their cause then I don't think a custodial sentence is enough and I think torture is an option... and in the case of Lee Rigby's killers I think it would be fitting
So it would be impossible for an innocent to be tortured, unless the state fit them up, which they could do now anyway
I suspect experienced security agents have good judgement on whether the suspects are holding back information.For terrorism and mass murder,I wouldn`t oppose any method of torture.
Mr. T, you also have the merit that Toynbee's piece is a moral cesspit, whereas yours actually makes a very important point.
Perhaps you can outdo her there as well.
If he wants to save trial by Jury he could have kept his speech to a couple of hours. Thomas More chambers should cover the cost of the court tomorrow.