Three hours before all these new crimes come into force, have they published the new virus regulations yet? I can't find them. Can anyone assist with a link?
And then I remembered that this is a cricket forum.
Cricket seems to unite us across politics on this forum
Pity other things more important do not
I think most agree the death penalty must never be reintroduced
I don't. If we are prepared to bomb our enemies, killing innocents, I can be persuaded that we should execute convicted child murderers.
Well your views depend on which personality you adopt that day, eh Sean
i have no idea who "Sean" is, but I am tired of this epicene liberal hypocrisy which tolerates bombing during wars (which kills babies) but shrivels in pearl-clutching horror at hanging the likes of Fred West.
You are Sean, well your last alter-ego/voice in your head was Sean.
The fact you still deny it's you when we all know it is, is the tragic thing.
It is a seat of two parts. Around 40% of the population lives in the university city of Bangor, which is strongly Labour. The rest is scattered through a variety of small towns and villages, almost all majority Welsh speaking, and is solidly Plaid. The share varies essentially according to turnout.
So it always looks close, but isn’t really. The vote isn’t volatile. The only swing town in the constituency would be Caernarfon.
And then I remembered that this is a cricket forum.
Cricket seems to unite us across politics on this forum
Pity other things more important do not
I think most agree the death penalty must never be reintroduced
I don't. If we are prepared to bomb our enemies, killing innocents, I can be persuaded that we should execute convicted child murderers.
Well your views depend on which personality you adopt that day, eh Sean
i have no idea who "Sean" is, but I am tired of this epicene liberal hypocrisy which tolerates bombing during wars (which kills babies) but shrivels in pearl-clutching horror at hanging the likes of Fred West.
You are Sean, well your last alter-ego/voice in your head was Sean.
The fact you still deny it's you when we all know it is, is the tragic thing.
And then I remembered that this is a cricket forum.
Cricket seems to unite us across politics on this forum
Pity other things more important do not
I think most agree the death penalty must never be reintroduced
I don't. If we are prepared to bomb our enemies, killing innocents, I can be persuaded that we should execute convicted child murderers.
Well your views depend on which personality you adopt that day, eh Sean
i have no idea who "Sean" is, but I am tired of this epicene liberal hypocrisy which tolerates bombing during wars (which kills babies) but shrivels in pearl-clutching horror at hanging the likes of Fred West.
He’s an author who Knox about this place under a variety of unconvincing pseudonyms.
And then I remembered that this is a cricket forum.
Cricket seems to unite us across politics on this forum
Pity other things more important do not
I think most agree the death penalty must never be reintroduced
I don't. If we are prepared to bomb our enemies, killing innocents, I can be persuaded that we should execute convicted child murderers.
Well your views depend on which personality you adopt that day, eh Sean
i have no idea who "Sean" is, but I am tired of this epicene liberal hypocrisy which tolerates bombing during wars (which kills babies) but shrivels in pearl-clutching horror at hanging the likes of Fred West.
You are Sean, well your last alter-ego/voice in your head was Sean.
The fact you still deny it's you when we all know it is, is the tragic thing.
lol
Presumably you'll be off soon and back with a new personality, I'll be sure to look out for it
And then I remembered that this is a cricket forum.
Cricket seems to unite us across politics on this forum
Pity other things more important do not
I think most agree the death penalty must never be reintroduced
I don't. If we are prepared to bomb our enemies, killing innocents, I can be persuaded that we should execute convicted child murderers.
Well your views depend on which personality you adopt that day, eh Sean
i have no idea who "Sean" is, but I am tired of this epicene liberal hypocrisy which tolerates bombing during wars (which kills babies) but shrivels in pearl-clutching horror at hanging the likes of Fred West.
You are Sean, well your last alter-ego/voice in your head was Sean.
The fact you still deny it's you when we all know it is, is the tragic thing.
lol
Presumably you'll be off soon and back with a new personality, I'll be sure to look out for it
Surely the nub of the matter is that every personality is the same.
It is a seat of two parts. Around 40% of the population lives in the university city of Bangor, which is strongly Labour. The rest is scattered through a variety of small towns and villages, almost all majority Welsh speaking, and is solidly Plaid. The share varies essentially according to turnout.
So it always looks close, but isn’t really. The vote isn’t volatile. The only swing town in the constituency would be Caernarfon.
Your knowledge is extraordinary
Oh yeah? Try me on London or East Anglia and you will rapidly revise your opinion...
And then I remembered that this is a cricket forum.
Cricket seems to unite us across politics on this forum
Pity other things more important do not
I think most agree the death penalty must never be reintroduced
I don't. If we are prepared to bomb our enemies, killing innocents, I can be persuaded that we should execute convicted child murderers.
Well your views depend on which personality you adopt that day, eh Sean
i have no idea who "Sean" is, but I am tired of this epicene liberal hypocrisy which tolerates bombing during wars (which kills babies) but shrivels in pearl-clutching horror at hanging the likes of Fred West.
You are Sean, well your last alter-ego/voice in your head was Sean.
The fact you still deny it's you when we all know it is, is the tragic thing.
lol
Presumably you'll be off soon and back with a new personality, I'll be sure to look out for it
Surely the nub of the matter is that every personality is the same.
The writing style is the same, his personality changes depending on the day, as do his views.
Did anyone do any research to investigate whether Braveheart did, as rumoured, have any political effects in Scotland?
I was at senior school up there at the time. I certainly detected a change in atmosphere towards the English afterwards.
Didn't they play one of the movie's more stirring scenes before or during (half time) a crucial England/Scotland rugby match, and Scotland surprisingly won?
I vaguely recall an anecdote to that effect.
Braveheart is an excellent film, whatever its inaccuracies. Simple but superb story telling. Vivid and compelling. It's just a shame it overshadowed the even better Rob Roy, which came out at about the same time, and has one of the greatest scripts of any British movie ever made.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
It is a seat of two parts. Around 40% of the population lives in the university city of Bangor, which is strongly Labour. The rest is scattered through a variety of small towns and villages, almost all majority Welsh speaking, and is solidly Plaid. The share varies essentially according to turnout.
So it always looks close, but isn’t really. The vote isn’t volatile. The only swing town in the constituency would be Caernarfon.
Your knowledge is extraordinary
Oh yeah? Try me on London or East Anglia and you will rapidly revise your opinion...
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
The wrongful convictions that were overturned years later would like to have a word. There simply is no way to ever be sure.
We do not kill people, we are a 21st Century liberal democracy
The culture warriors clearly have never read J G Farrell - one of the most incisive (and funniest) critics of the British Empire.
In fairness one wonders if there might be a real problem but it might be the film producers who perpetrated the problem.
This reminds me that Farrell also wrote Troubles - also about Imperial decline (but in Ireland). I have both from when they first came out - I must fish them out again.
If I was to indulge in amateur pscychologising I might be tempted to suggest It's about Britain's inability to examine it's past, but let's not go there..
Really, Braveheart?
The most historically inaccurate film ever.
While not suggesting Braveheart is in any way accurate, I feel you’re a bit generous to The Charge of the Light Brigade.
There was far too much wooly thinking there.
I mean The Seventh Earl of Cardigan commanding during the Battle of Balaclava.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
The wrongful convictions that were overturned years later would like to have a word. There simply is no way to ever be sure.
We do not kill people, we are a 21st Century liberal democracy
Are you telling me that there is doubt about the identity or actions of the guy who shot all those people in that Mosque in New Zealand?
It is a seat of two parts. Around 40% of the population lives in the university city of Bangor, which is strongly Labour. The rest is scattered through a variety of small towns and villages, almost all majority Welsh speaking, and is solidly Plaid. The share varies essentially according to turnout.
So it always looks close, but isn’t really. The vote isn’t volatile. The only swing town in the constituency would be Caernarfon.
Your knowledge is extraordinary
Oh yeah? Try me on London or East Anglia and you will rapidly revise your opinion...
Well you know a lot more than me, friend
It’s nice to be appreciated
But seriously, there are some areas I know, including much of Wales, and I feel confident to discuss them. In other areas, like those I mentioned, when I opine I do tend to end up looking a fool.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
The wrongful convictions that were overturned years later would like to have a word. There simply is no way to ever be sure.
We do not kill people, we are a 21st Century liberal democracy
Are you telling me that there is doubt about the identity or actions of the guy who shot all those people in that Mosque in New Zealand?
For every case you say is certain (which this one is, despite your attempt at unfair debate), I can point to several where they got it completely wrong
It is a seat of two parts. Around 40% of the population lives in the university city of Bangor, which is strongly Labour. The rest is scattered through a variety of small towns and villages, almost all majority Welsh speaking, and is solidly Plaid. The share varies essentially according to turnout.
So it always looks close, but isn’t really. The vote isn’t volatile. The only swing town in the constituency would be Caernarfon.
Your knowledge is extraordinary
Oh yeah? Try me on London or East Anglia and you will rapidly revise your opinion...
Well you know a lot more than me, friend
It’s nice to be appreciated
But seriously, there are some areas I know, including much of Wales, and I feel confident to discuss them. In other areas, like those I mentioned, when I opine I do tend to end up looking a fool.
So - lesson learned - I keep away from them.
I always look a fool, I am happy with others teaching me
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
Hitler?
Imagine we'd caught him after the Fall of Berlin.
Would you see him hang? I would.
Many would have been curious to see if he could be well hung, in light of the rumours.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
Hitler?
Imagine we'd caught him after the Fall of Berlin.
Would you see him hang? I would.
We did not hang Napoleon and he terrorised the whole of Europe for decades.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
The wrongful convictions that were overturned years later would like to have a word. There simply is no way to ever be sure.
We do not kill people, we are a 21st Century liberal democracy
Are you telling me that there is doubt about the identity or actions of the guy who shot all those people in that Mosque in New Zealand?
For every case you say is certain (which this one is, despite your attempt at unfair debate), I can point to several where they got it completely wrong
Yes, but they weren't just executing people where there was no doubt, were they? That wasn't a rule back then.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
The wrongful convictions that were overturned years later would like to have a word. There simply is no way to ever be sure.
We do not kill people, we are a 21st Century liberal democracy
Are you telling me that there is doubt about the identity or actions of the guy who shot all those people in that Mosque in New Zealand?
For every case you say is certain (which this one is, despite your attempt at unfair debate), I can point to several where they got it completely wrong
Yes, but they weren't just executing people where there was no doubt, were they? That wasn't a rule back then.
In countries that still do execute people, start with the USA for a start
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
Hitler?
Imagine we'd caught him after the Fall of Berlin.
Would you see him hang? I would.
We did not hang Napoleon and he terrorised the whole of Europe for decades.
Now there was a man who was famous for not being well hung.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
The wrongful convictions that were overturned years later would like to have a word. There simply is no way to ever be sure.
We do not kill people, we are a 21st Century liberal democracy
Are you telling me that there is doubt about the identity or actions of the guy who shot all those people in that Mosque in New Zealand?
For every case you say is certain (which this one is, despite your attempt at unfair debate), I can point to several where they got it completely wrong
Yes, but they weren't just executing people where there was no doubt, were they? That wasn't a rule back then.
In countries that still do execute people, start with the USA for a start
Yes, and I think that is wrong. Why are you arguing with me?
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
Hitler?
Imagine we'd caught him after the Fall of Berlin.
Would you see him hang? I would.
We did not hang Napoleon and he terrorised the whole of Europe for decades.
Napoleon was not a particularly nice man, but I don't think you can equate him with Hitler.
The idea of giving Hitler "life imprisonment" is just absurd. He was a man who deserved to hang, if we had captured him. Likewise several other leading Nazis (who were, rightly, executed after the Nuremberg Trials).
For Trump, the positive news is that he's narrowed the gap to just five points. For Biden, the positive news is that his share in unchanged on 51%.
Wow, Fox really deserve their reputation as great pollsters. There is absolute gold in the questions - especially with the historical perspective they provide.
The How do you rate the he economy question asked at 2012, 2014, 2016 and 2018 is a light bulb moment.
53% of respondents said the economy was excellent or good in 2018 and then they shellaced the GOP anyways.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
The wrongful convictions that were overturned years later would like to have a word. There simply is no way to ever be sure.
We do not kill people, we are a 21st Century liberal democracy
Are you telling me that there is doubt about the identity or actions of the guy who shot all those people in that Mosque in New Zealand?
For every case you say is certain (which this one is, despite your attempt at unfair debate), I can point to several where they got it completely wrong
Yes, but they weren't just executing people where there was no doubt, were they? That wasn't a rule back then.
In countries that still do execute people, start with the USA for a start
Yes, and I think that is wrong. Why are you arguing with me?
"can't even find a decent culture to be colonised by"
Ahem. Scotland was conquered and colonised by the English who also, by the by, created the modern world via the industrial revolution, saved the world during the Second World War, abolished slavery in their spare time, and created the greatest empire the world has ever seen, thereby making English the international language, allowing Scots to be (vaguely) understood all over the globe.
if Scotland hadn't been beaten up and enslaved by England, Scots would still be gargling in their weird little Gaelic tongue, and would also be eating lichen.
Irvine Welsh is simply and factually incorrect here. If you are going to be conquered and colonised, you may as well be conquered and colonised by the best: the English.
It very neatly encapsulates the visceral Scottish inferiority complex vis-a-vis the English.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
Hitler?
Imagine we'd caught him after the Fall of Berlin.
Would you see him hang? I would.
We did not hang Napoleon and he terrorised the whole of Europe for decades.
Napoleon was not a particularly nice man, but I don't think you can equate him with Hitler.
The idea of giving Hitler "life imprisonment" is just absurd. He was a man who deserved to hang, if we had captured him. Likewise several other leading Nazis (who were, rightly, executed after the Nuremberg Trials).
Lock him up forever, throw away the key.
I oppose the death penalty on principle, irrelevant who it is
Those are incredibly ignorant comments. Trump seems to cast a spell over some people, many of them are undoubtably morons, or racist scum, but some of them must be sort of normal judging by the poll share. How does he do it? How come they don't see through the endless BS? Is it simply that they don't want to admit to being wrong?
"can't even find a decent culture to be colonised by"
Ahem. Scotland was conquered and colonised by the English who also, by the by, created the modern world via the industrial revolution, saved the world during the Second World War, abolished slavery in their spare time, and created the greatest empire the world has ever seen, thereby making English the international language, allowing Scots to be (vaguely) understood all over the globe.
if Scotland hadn't been beaten up and enslaved by England, Scots would still be gargling in their weird little Gaelic tongue, and would also be eating lichen.
Irvine Welsh is simply and factually incorrect here. If you are going to be conquered and colonised, you may as well be conquered and colonised by the best: the English.
It very neatly encapsulates the visceral Scottish inferiority complex vis-a-vis the English.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
The wrongful convictions that were overturned years later would like to have a word. There simply is no way to ever be sure.
We do not kill people, we are a 21st Century liberal democracy
Are you telling me that there is doubt about the identity or actions of the guy who shot all those people in that Mosque in New Zealand?
For every case you say is certain (which this one is, despite your attempt at unfair debate), I can point to several where they got it completely wrong
Yes, but they weren't just executing people where there was no doubt, were they? That wasn't a rule back then.
In countries that still do execute people, start with the USA for a start
Yes, and I think that is wrong. Why are you arguing with me?
My point is the idea of certainty is impossible.
I thought you said that you were certain about the guy in New Zealand?
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
The wrongful convictions that were overturned years later would like to have a word. There simply is no way to ever be sure.
We do not kill people, we are a 21st Century liberal democracy
Are you telling me that there is doubt about the identity or actions of the guy who shot all those people in that Mosque in New Zealand?
For every case you say is certain (which this one is, despite your attempt at unfair debate), I can point to several where they got it completely wrong
Yes, but they weren't just executing people where there was no doubt, were they? That wasn't a rule back then.
In countries that still do execute people, start with the USA for a start
Yes, and I think that is wrong. Why are you arguing with me?
My point is the idea of certainty is impossible.
I thought you said that you were certain about the guy in New Zealand?
And I then said I am opposed to the death penalty on principle.
It is impossible to be certain in every case and I oppose killing people, really that simple
Very odd approach from Australia...they taking a single which keeps the rabbit on strike. Surely better to give up 1 and hope your batsman can club some boundaries.
I find the argument that some of these historical genius should have known better for their out of date views, because well they were a genius, rather odd.
Not only must they have confirmed to a perfectly virtuous life (by modern standards), they must have also been able to see the future and know what they had wrong in advance.
e.g. Considering that black Africans were intellectually inferior to white Europeans, when at the time virtually nobody had visited Africa, let alone have any empirical evidence. Rather it is based on hearsay about things like level of development in those civilisations and what was considered "backward" beliefs they had in comparison to the enlightened European civilisation.
But of course our own civilisation 200 years ago is massively backward in their beliefs of how the world works in every subject from today. And in 200 years will be looked back on what idiots we were today.
There is also the flawed assumption that history has a particular poltical or ethical direction. That's really not true. It's entirely plausible that some of the "right on" things of today will become unacceptable once more in the future, and vice versa.
Interesting comment. Could be right but I'm not sure. Need to think about it.
Can you or anybody else give a few examples of something (non trivial) that used to be socially acceptable but is now unacceptable - e.g. drink driving - that we can envisage becoming acceptable again in the foreseeable future?
Loads of things to do with drug usage and sex have flip and flopped between what is acceptable, and wouldn't be surprised if they continue to do so.
Drugs and sex? Ok. But specifically something that was acceptable, is now unacceptable, but is likely to become acceptable again - not much is springing to mind.
Are you phrasing it in that way to rule out the opposite? Abortion seems the most likely to reverse simply because it is a fundamental conflict of rights.
No, that way - unacceptable to acceptable to unacceptable again - is just as interesting to consider.
Abortion? Well, a big slice of the USA would like to see that happen. Not seeing it myself though. Women will not tolerate such a diminution in status.
Perhaps a bit late to suggest it as it has already happened, but one of the bellwethers of Brexit-related cultural clashes to me was when an English friend in Devon commented to me about 2009-11 about the way in which racialist chatter had suddenly become more acceptable in the local yacht/golf/etc clubs - middle class circles. He was evidently quite struck by it.
Places like Devon and Cornwall are very nice to spend a couple of weeks in during August, but anecdotes like this are why I'd never live there. Just can't be bothered with this kind of shit.
What utter bollocks
Absolutely. I go there every year and I've yet to encounter any of the attitudes caricatured there.
Did anyone do any research to investigate whether Braveheart did, as rumoured, have any political effects in Scotland?
I was at senior school up there at the time. I certainly detected a change in atmosphere towards the English afterwards.
Didn't they play one of the movie's more stirring scenes before or during (half time) a crucial England/Scotland rugby match, and Scotland surprisingly won?
I vaguely recall an anecdote to that effect.
Braveheart is an excellent film, whatever its inaccuracies. Simple but superb story telling. Vivid and compelling. It's just a shame it overshadowed the even better Rob Roy, which came out at about the same time, and has one of the greatest scripts of any British movie ever made.
Very odd approach from Australia...they taking a single which keeps the rabbit on strike. Surely better to give up 1 and hope your batsman can club some boundaries.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
The wrongful convictions that were overturned years later would like to have a word. There simply is no way to ever be sure.
We do not kill people, we are a 21st Century liberal democracy
Are you telling me that there is doubt about the identity or actions of the guy who shot all those people in that Mosque in New Zealand?
For every case you say is certain (which this one is, despite your attempt at unfair debate), I can point to several where they got it completely wrong
Yes, but they weren't just executing people where there was no doubt, were they? That wasn't a rule back then.
In countries that still do execute people, start with the USA for a start
Yes, and I think that is wrong. Why are you arguing with me?
My point is the idea of certainty is impossible.
I thought you said that you were certain about the guy in New Zealand?
And I then said I am opposed to the death penalty on principle.
It is impossible to be certain in every case and I oppose killing people, really that simple
Well, so am I as it happens, but I was just pointing out that ultimately it comes down to that because there are cases where there is no doubt so Hislop's argument only works in so far as capital punishment should not be used where there is any doubt.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
Hitler?
Imagine we'd caught him after the Fall of Berlin.
Would you see him hang? I would.
We did not hang Napoleon and he terrorised the whole of Europe for decades.
Napoleon was not a particularly nice man, but I don't think you can equate him with Hitler.
The idea of giving Hitler "life imprisonment" is just absurd. He was a man who deserved to hang, if we had captured him. Likewise several other leading Nazis (who were, rightly, executed after the Nuremberg Trials).
Lock him up forever, throw away the key.
I oppose the death penalty on principle, irrelevant who it is
Locking someone up for ever, presumably in solitary confinement, with no prospect of any release, is arguably a torment worse, and more inhumane, than execution. What's the point in this crueltyt? Why waste the money? So he can repent??
Hitler was never going to repent. Hanging him, after a trial and conviction, would have been the better resolution, if we'd had the choice.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
Hitler?
Imagine we'd caught him after the Fall of Berlin.
Would you see him hang? I would.
We did not hang Napoleon and he terrorised the whole of Europe for decades.
Napoleon was not a particularly nice man, but I don't think you can equate him with Hitler.
The idea of giving Hitler "life imprisonment" is just absurd. He was a man who deserved to hang, if we had captured him. Likewise several other leading Nazis (who were, rightly, executed after the Nuremberg Trials).
Lock him up forever, throw away the key.
I oppose the death penalty on principle, irrelevant who it is
Locking someone up for ever, presumably in solitary confinement, with no prospect of any release, is arguably a torment worse, and more inhumane, than execution. What's the point in this crueltyt? Why waste the money? So he can repent??
Hitler was never going to repent. Hanging him, after a trial and conviction, would have been the better resolution, if we'd had the choice.
No it wouldn't, I oppose killing people on principle.
Send him to prison and he can stay there for life. That's the humane thing to do, not killing somebody. Doesn't matter who it is.
Those are incredibly ignorant comments. Trump seems to cast a spell over some people, many of them are undoubtably morons, or racist scum, but some of them must be sort of normal judging by the poll share. How does he do it? How come they don't see through the endless BS? Is it simply that they don't want to admit to being wrong?
"Mother, should I build the wall? Mother, should I run for President? Mother, should I trust the government?"
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
Hitler?
Imagine we'd caught him after the Fall of Berlin.
Would you see him hang? I would.
We did not hang Napoleon and he terrorised the whole of Europe for decades.
Napoleon was not a particularly nice man, but I don't think you can equate him with Hitler.
The idea of giving Hitler "life imprisonment" is just absurd. He was a man who deserved to hang, if we had captured him. Likewise several other leading Nazis (who were, rightly, executed after the Nuremberg Trials).
Lock him up forever, throw away the key.
I oppose the death penalty on principle, irrelevant who it is
Locking someone up for ever, presumably in solitary confinement, with no prospect of any release, is arguably a torment worse, and more inhumane, than execution. What's the point in this crueltyt? Why waste the money? So he can repent??
Hitler was never going to repent. Hanging him, after a trial and conviction, would have been the better resolution, if we'd had the choice.
Because we can afford the money and even if the conviction has only 0.001% of being wrong it's money will spent.
And if they are guilty the surely a more inhumane punishment is better than letting their torment end.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
The wrongful convictions that were overturned years later would like to have a word. There simply is no way to ever be sure.
We do not kill people, we are a 21st Century liberal democracy
Are you telling me that there is doubt about the identity or actions of the guy who shot all those people in that Mosque in New Zealand?
For every case you say is certain (which this one is, despite your attempt at unfair debate), I can point to several where they got it completely wrong
Yes, but they weren't just executing people where there was no doubt, were they? That wasn't a rule back then.
In countries that still do execute people, start with the USA for a start
Yes, and I think that is wrong. Why are you arguing with me?
My point is the idea of certainty is impossible.
I thought you said that you were certain about the guy in New Zealand?
And I then said I am opposed to the death penalty on principle.
It is impossible to be certain in every case and I oppose killing people, really that simple
Well, so am I as it happens, but I was just pointing out that ultimately it comes down to that because there are cases where there is no doubt so Hislop's argument only works in so far as capital punishment should not be used where there is any doubt.
The really interesting dilemma would be, say, if you got some awful child murderer in prison, and he asked for the means to commit suicide, rather than face a lifetime in jail without any prospect of release.
Giving him the means to kill himself would be tantamount to execution. Denying him this option would be pointlessly cruel. What is the right course of action?
And then I remembered that this is a cricket forum.
Cricket seems to unite us across politics on this forum
Pity other things more important do not
I think most agree the death penalty must never be reintroduced
I don't. If we are prepared to bomb our enemies, killing innocents, I can be persuaded that we should execute convicted child murderers.
Well your views depend on which personality you adopt that day, eh Sean
i have no idea who "Sean" is, but I am tired of this epicene liberal hypocrisy which tolerates bombing during wars (which kills babies) but shrivels in pearl-clutching horror at hanging the likes of Fred West.
He’s an author who Knox about this place under a variety of unconvincing pseudonyms.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
The wrongful convictions that were overturned years later would like to have a word. There simply is no way to ever be sure.
We do not kill people, we are a 21st Century liberal democracy
Are you telling me that there is doubt about the identity or actions of the guy who shot all those people in that Mosque in New Zealand?
For every case you say is certain (which this one is, despite your attempt at unfair debate), I can point to several where they got it completely wrong
Yes, but they weren't just executing people where there was no doubt, were they? That wasn't a rule back then.
In countries that still do execute people, start with the USA for a start
Yes, and I think that is wrong. Why are you arguing with me?
My point is the idea of certainty is impossible.
I thought you said that you were certain about the guy in New Zealand?
And I then said I am opposed to the death penalty on principle.
It is impossible to be certain in every case and I oppose killing people, really that simple
Well, so am I as it happens, but I was just pointing out that ultimately it comes down to that because there are cases where there is no doubt so Hislop's argument only works in so far as capital punishment should not be used where there is any doubt.
The really interesting dilemma would be, say, if you got some awful child murderer in prison, and he asked for the means to commit suicide, rather than face a lifetime in jail without any prospect of release.
Giving him the means to kill himself would be tantamount to execution. Denying him this option would be pointlessly cruel. What is the right course of action?
Those are incredibly ignorant comments. Trump seems to cast a spell over some people, many of them are undoubtably morons, or racist scum, but some of them must be sort of normal judging by the poll share. How does he do it? How come they don't see through the endless BS? Is it simply that they don't want to admit to being wrong?
No, but he talks their language, which is essentially that of a pub boor. There are strong elements of racism, mysogyny and bigotry involved, and above all there is a disdain for liberals who are so different from them and to whose values they could never aspire even if they wanted to. He's one of them, and as long as he appears to be so, they really don't care what he does or whether the reality of his Presidency relates in any way to how he portrays it and they perceive it.
And then I remembered that this is a cricket forum.
At least cricket is interesting unlike trains.
*ducks*
Ahem .......
Never had you down as a trainspotter, Cyclefree!
Trains take you somewhere interesting. You can see the landscape out of them and you can have adventures when travelling in them. I love travelling by train.
Cricket, OTOH, is the dullest activity I have ever had the misfortune of seeing.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
Hitler?
Imagine we'd caught him after the Fall of Berlin.
Would you see him hang? I would.
We did not hang Napoleon and he terrorised the whole of Europe for decades.
Napoleon was not a particularly nice man, but I don't think you can equate him with Hitler.
The idea of giving Hitler "life imprisonment" is just absurd. He was a man who deserved to hang, if we had captured him. Likewise several other leading Nazis (who were, rightly, executed after the Nuremberg Trials).
Lock him up forever, throw away the key.
I oppose the death penalty on principle, irrelevant who it is
Locking someone up for ever, presumably in solitary confinement, with no prospect of any release, is arguably a torment worse, and more inhumane, than execution. What's the point in this crueltyt? Why waste the money? So he can repent??
Hitler was never going to repent. Hanging him, after a trial and conviction, would have been the better resolution, if we'd had the choice.
No it wouldn't, I oppose killing people on principle.
Send him to prison and he can stay there for life. That's the humane thing to do, not killing somebody. Doesn't matter who it is.
Some people I would be OK with executing, but my problem is we could never design a system that didn't risk killing an innocent person and that is not OK.
Some people say "ah but what if you're 100% certain" - frankly I don't think its possible to design a system where the penalty would only apply with you being 100% certain, so I'm not, so I'm opposed.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
The wrongful convictions that were overturned years later would like to have a word. There simply is no way to ever be sure.
We do not kill people, we are a 21st Century liberal democracy
We use drones to execute terrorists in the field. Don't even bother trying to arrest and convict them.
And then I remembered that this is a cricket forum.
At least cricket is interesting unlike trains.
*ducks*
Ahem .......
Never had you down as a trainspotter, Cyclefree!
Trains take you somewhere interesting. You can see the landscape out of them and you can have adventures when travelling in them. I love travelling by train.
Cricket, OTOH, is the dullest activity I have ever had the misfortune of seeing.
I’m impressed that you’ve lived in England all this time and never once seen bowls on the TV.
Did anyone do any research to investigate whether Braveheart did, as rumoured, have any political effects in Scotland?
I was at senior school up there at the time. I certainly detected a change in atmosphere towards the English afterwards.
Didn't they play one of the movie's more stirring scenes before or during (half time) a crucial England/Scotland rugby match, and Scotland surprisingly won?
I vaguely recall an anecdote to that effect.
Braveheart is an excellent film, whatever its inaccuracies. Simple but superb story telling. Vivid and compelling. It's just a shame it overshadowed the even better Rob Roy, which came out at about the same time, and has one of the greatest scripts of any British movie ever made.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
Hitler?
Imagine we'd caught him after the Fall of Berlin.
Would you see him hang? I would.
We did not hang Napoleon and he terrorised the whole of Europe for decades.
Napoleon was not a particularly nice man, but I don't think you can equate him with Hitler.
The idea of giving Hitler "life imprisonment" is just absurd. He was a man who deserved to hang, if we had captured him. Likewise several other leading Nazis (who were, rightly, executed after the Nuremberg Trials).
Lock him up forever, throw away the key.
I oppose the death penalty on principle, irrelevant who it is
Locking someone up for ever, presumably in solitary confinement, with no prospect of any release, is arguably a torment worse, and more inhumane, than execution. What's the point in this crueltyt? Why waste the money? So he can repent??
Hitler was never going to repent. Hanging him, after a trial and conviction, would have been the better resolution, if we'd had the choice.
No it wouldn't, I oppose killing people on principle.
Send him to prison and he can stay there for life. That's the humane thing to do, not killing somebody. Doesn't matter who it is.
Some people I would be OK with executing, but my problem is we could never design a system that didn't risk killing an innocent person and that is not OK.
Some people say "ah but what if you're 100% certain" - frankly I don't think its possible to design a system where the penalty would only apply with you being 100% certain, so I'm not, so I'm opposed.
Spot on.
I wouldn't miss any of these murderers but the truth is - as you say - we will kill the wrong person. Then they're dead.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
The wrongful convictions that were overturned years later would like to have a word. There simply is no way to ever be sure.
We do not kill people, we are a 21st Century liberal democracy
Are you telling me that there is doubt about the identity or actions of the guy who shot all those people in that Mosque in New Zealand?
For every case you say is certain (which this one is, despite your attempt at unfair debate), I can point to several where they got it completely wrong
Yes, but they weren't just executing people where there was no doubt, were they? That wasn't a rule back then.
In countries that still do execute people, start with the USA for a start
Yes, and I think that is wrong. Why are you arguing with me?
My point is the idea of certainty is impossible.
I thought you said that you were certain about the guy in New Zealand?
And I then said I am opposed to the death penalty on principle.
It is impossible to be certain in every case and I oppose killing people, really that simple
Well, so am I as it happens, but I was just pointing out that ultimately it comes down to that because there are cases where there is no doubt so Hislop's argument only works in so far as capital punishment should not be used where there is any doubt.
The really interesting dilemma would be, say, if you got some awful child murderer in prison, and he asked for the means to commit suicide, rather than face a lifetime in jail without any prospect of release.
Giving him the means to kill himself would be tantamount to execution. Denying him this option would be pointlessly cruel. What is the right course of action?
I also support legalising euthanasia.
For the terminally ill or for prisoners on demand?
I'd support it for both. Say to certain people "we will never release you, we won't kill you, but if you want to die we will facilitate it for you."
And then I remembered that this is a cricket forum.
At least cricket is interesting unlike trains.
*ducks*
Ahem .......
Never had you down as a trainspotter, Cyclefree!
Trains take you somewhere interesting. You can see the landscape out of them and you can have adventures when travelling in them. I love travelling by train.
Cricket, OTOH, is the dullest activity I have ever had the misfortune of seeing.
You do realise when it got a bit dull a while back they burned the stumps as a sacrificial victim. Unbelievers are likely to get a worse treatment.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
The wrongful convictions that were overturned years later would like to have a word. There simply is no way to ever be sure.
We do not kill people, we are a 21st Century liberal democracy
Are you telling me that there is doubt about the identity or actions of the guy who shot all those people in that Mosque in New Zealand?
For every case you say is certain (which this one is, despite your attempt at unfair debate), I can point to several where they got it completely wrong
Yes, but they weren't just executing people where there was no doubt, were they? That wasn't a rule back then.
In countries that still do execute people, start with the USA for a start
Yes, and I think that is wrong. Why are you arguing with me?
My point is the idea of certainty is impossible.
I thought you said that you were certain about the guy in New Zealand?
And I then said I am opposed to the death penalty on principle.
It is impossible to be certain in every case and I oppose killing people, really that simple
Well, so am I as it happens, but I was just pointing out that ultimately it comes down to that because there are cases where there is no doubt so Hislop's argument only works in so far as capital punishment should not be used where there is any doubt.
The really interesting dilemma would be, say, if you got some awful child murderer in prison, and he asked for the means to commit suicide, rather than face a lifetime in jail without any prospect of release.
Giving him the means to kill himself would be tantamount to execution. Denying him this option would be pointlessly cruel. What is the right course of action?
I also support legalising euthanasia.
For the terminally ill or for prisoners on demand?
I'd support it for both. Say to certain people "we will never release you, we won't kill you, but if you want to die we will facilitate it for you."
And then I remembered that this is a cricket forum.
Cricket seems to unite us across politics on this forum
Pity other things more important do not
I think most agree the death penalty must never be reintroduced
I don't. If we are prepared to bomb our enemies, killing innocents, I can be persuaded that we should execute convicted child murderers.
Well your views depend on which personality you adopt that day, eh Sean
i have no idea who "Sean" is, but I am tired of this epicene liberal hypocrisy which tolerates bombing during wars (which kills babies) but shrivels in pearl-clutching horror at hanging the likes of Fred West.
I am a bit tired of the idiocy, masquerading as cleverness, by using words like “epicene” but which does not understand the difference between what a state does in peacetime and war and why those might be different.
"can't even find a decent culture to be colonised by"
Ahem. Scotland was conquered and colonised by the English who also, by the by, created the modern world via the industrial revolution, saved the world during the Second World War, abolished slavery in their spare time, and created the greatest empire the world has ever seen, thereby making English the international language, allowing Scots to be (vaguely) understood all over the globe.
if Scotland hadn't been beaten up and enslaved by England, Scots would still be gargling in their weird little Gaelic tongue, and would also be eating lichen.
Irvine Welsh is simply and factually incorrect here. If you are going to be conquered and colonised, you may as well be conquered and colonised by the best: the English.
The whiffs of gently simmering wee coming from you are a tonic, I must say.
WTF does that even mean? Is it meant to be an insult? it's just weird.
Because after years of your various personae insisting that everything was bad for the SNP, indy was dead, the Jocks reely luv the UK etc, etc, all indicators suggest the opposite. You loudly insisting that polls, Brexit, Unionist poster boys jumping ship and Scots generally despising BJ don't matter is a sure indication that all these things are, not to put too fine a point on it, boiling your piss, which is most satisfactory.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
Hitler?
Imagine we'd caught him after the Fall of Berlin.
Would you see him hang? I would.
We did not hang Napoleon and he terrorised the whole of Europe for decades.
Napoleon was not a particularly nice man, but I don't think you can equate him with Hitler.
The idea of giving Hitler "life imprisonment" is just absurd. He was a man who deserved to hang, if we had captured him. Likewise several other leading Nazis (who were, rightly, executed after the Nuremberg Trials).
Lock him up forever, throw away the key.
I oppose the death penalty on principle, irrelevant who it is
Locking someone up for ever, presumably in solitary confinement, with no prospect of any release, is arguably a torment worse, and more inhumane, than execution. What's the point in this crueltyt? Why waste the money? So he can repent??
Hitler was never going to repent. Hanging him, after a trial and conviction, would have been the better resolution, if we'd had the choice.
No it wouldn't, I oppose killing people on principle.
Send him to prison and he can stay there for life. That's the humane thing to do, not killing somebody. Doesn't matter who it is.
Some people I would be OK with executing, but my problem is we could never design a system that didn't risk killing an innocent person and that is not OK.
Some people say "ah but what if you're 100% certain" - frankly I don't think its possible to design a system where the penalty would only apply with you being 100% certain, so I'm not, so I'm opposed.
There are cases where you can be a 100% certain. I'm trying to think of an example where there might be an argument about it. Perhaps the brother of the Manchester bomber?
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
The wrongful convictions that were overturned years later would like to have a word. There simply is no way to ever be sure.
We do not kill people, we are a 21st Century liberal democracy
Are you telling me that there is doubt about the identity or actions of the guy who shot all those people in that Mosque in New Zealand?
For every case you say is certain (which this one is, despite your attempt at unfair debate), I can point to several where they got it completely wrong
Yes, but they weren't just executing people where there was no doubt, were they? That wasn't a rule back then.
In countries that still do execute people, start with the USA for a start
Yes, and I think that is wrong. Why are you arguing with me?
My point is the idea of certainty is impossible.
I thought you said that you were certain about the guy in New Zealand?
And I then said I am opposed to the death penalty on principle.
It is impossible to be certain in every case and I oppose killing people, really that simple
Well, so am I as it happens, but I was just pointing out that ultimately it comes down to that because there are cases where there is no doubt so Hislop's argument only works in so far as capital punishment should not be used where there is any doubt.
The really interesting dilemma would be, say, if you got some awful child murderer in prison, and he asked for the means to commit suicide, rather than face a lifetime in jail without any prospect of release.
Giving him the means to kill himself would be tantamount to execution. Denying him this option would be pointlessly cruel. What is the right course of action?
I also support legalising euthanasia.
Selective euthanasia is a non-starter, because it degenerates instantaneously into Granny not wanting to go but not wanting to be a burden either, and her children pressuring her in a passive-aggressive way into opting out before all the inheritance goes in nursing home fees.
A Logan's Run scenario where everybody gets it at let's say 70 regardless of personal preference has a yuuuge amount to be said for it.
Those are incredibly ignorant comments. Trump seems to cast a spell over some people, many of them are undoubtably morons, or racist scum, but some of them must be sort of normal judging by the poll share. How does he do it? How come they don't see through the endless BS? Is it simply that they don't want to admit to being wrong?
No, but he talks their language, which is essentially that of a pub boor. There are strong elements of racism, mysogyny and bigotry involved, and above all there is a disdain for liberals who are so different from them and to whose values they could never aspire even if they wanted to. He's one of them, and as long as he appears to be so, they really don't care what he does or whether the reality of his Presidency relates in any way to how he portrays it and they perceive it.
I've starting moving a few quid onto Trump. I'll still be mainly Biden, but looking to reduce my exposure to the Orange one winning.
I don't have a good feeling on this. Just don't trust the polls.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
The wrongful convictions that were overturned years later would like to have a word. There simply is no way to ever be sure.
We do not kill people, we are a 21st Century liberal democracy
We use drones to execute terrorists in the field. Don't even bother trying to arrest and convict them.
Exactly. I do not understand the liberal blind spot over this. The state has a monopoly on violence, up to and including the slaughter of foreign people we don't like, some innocent and unintended. Yet we recoil from the death penalty like it is some unique horror?
I am not pro-death penalty, I can see the good arguments against. But I can also see the arguments in favour. For me it can be finely balanced, at least for extreme cases (like confessed child killers)
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
The wrongful convictions that were overturned years later would like to have a word. There simply is no way to ever be sure.
We do not kill people, we are a 21st Century liberal democracy
Are you telling me that there is doubt about the identity or actions of the guy who shot all those people in that Mosque in New Zealand?
For every case you say is certain (which this one is, despite your attempt at unfair debate), I can point to several where they got it completely wrong
Yes, but they weren't just executing people where there was no doubt, were they? That wasn't a rule back then.
In countries that still do execute people, start with the USA for a start
Yes, and I think that is wrong. Why are you arguing with me?
My point is the idea of certainty is impossible.
I thought you said that you were certain about the guy in New Zealand?
And I then said I am opposed to the death penalty on principle.
It is impossible to be certain in every case and I oppose killing people, really that simple
Well, so am I as it happens, but I was just pointing out that ultimately it comes down to that because there are cases where there is no doubt so Hislop's argument only works in so far as capital punishment should not be used where there is any doubt.
The really interesting dilemma would be, say, if you got some awful child murderer in prison, and he asked for the means to commit suicide, rather than face a lifetime in jail without any prospect of release.
Giving him the means to kill himself would be tantamount to execution. Denying him this option would be pointlessly cruel. What is the right course of action?
I also support legalising euthanasia.
Selective euthanasia is a non-starter, because it degenerates instantaneously into Granny not wanting to go but not wanting to be a burden either, and her children pressuring her in a passive-aggressive way into opting out before all the inheritance goes in nursing home fees.
A Logan's Run scenario where everybody gets it at let's say 70 regardless of personal preference has a yuuuge amount to be said for it.
And then I remembered that this is a cricket forum.
Cricket seems to unite us across politics on this forum
Pity other things more important do not
I think most agree the death penalty must never be reintroduced
I don't. If we are prepared to bomb our enemies, killing innocents, I can be persuaded that we should execute convicted child murderers.
Well your views depend on which personality you adopt that day, eh Sean
i have no idea who "Sean" is, but I am tired of this epicene liberal hypocrisy which tolerates bombing during wars (which kills babies) but shrivels in pearl-clutching horror at hanging the likes of Fred West.
I am a bit tired of the idiocy, masquerading as cleverness, by using words like “epicene” but which does not understand the difference between what a state does in peacetime and war and why those might be different.
"can't even find a decent culture to be colonised by"
Ahem. Scotland was conquered and colonised by the English who also, by the by, created the modern world via the industrial revolution, saved the world during the Second World War, abolished slavery in their spare time, and created the greatest empire the world has ever seen, thereby making English the international language, allowing Scots to be (vaguely) understood all over the globe.
if Scotland hadn't been beaten up and enslaved by England, Scots would still be gargling in their weird little Gaelic tongue, and would also be eating lichen.
Irvine Welsh is simply and factually incorrect here. If you are going to be conquered and colonised, you may as well be conquered and colonised by the best: the English.
It very neatly encapsulates the visceral Scottish inferiority complex vis-a-vis the English.
Precisely put.
It's SHITE being a BREXITEER! We're the lowest of the low. The scum of the fucking Earth! The most wretched miserable, servile, pathetic trash that was ever shat on civilization. Some people hate the REMAINERS. I don't. They're just wankers. We, on the other hand, won a referendum against wankers. Can't even find a decent culture to win a referendum against! We're ruled by effete assholes. It's a shite state of affairs to be in, Sean, and all the acceptable law-breaking in the world won't make any fucking difference!
"can't even find a decent culture to be colonised by"
Ahem. Scotland was conquered and colonised by the English who also, by the by, created the modern world via the industrial revolution, saved the world during the Second World War, abolished slavery in their spare time, and created the greatest empire the world has ever seen, thereby making English the international language, allowing Scots to be (vaguely) understood all over the globe.
if Scotland hadn't been beaten up and enslaved by England, Scots would still be gargling in their weird little Gaelic tongue, and would also be eating lichen.
Irvine Welsh is simply and factually incorrect here. If you are going to be conquered and colonised, you may as well be conquered and colonised by the best: the English.
The whiffs of gently simmering wee coming from you are a tonic, I must say.
WTF does that even mean? Is it meant to be an insult? it's just weird.
Because after years of your various personae insisting that everything was bad for the SNP, indy was dead, the Jocks reely luv the UK etc, etc, all indicators suggest the opposite. You loudly insisting that polls, Brexit, Unionist poster boys jumping ship and Scots generally despising BJ don't matter is a sure indication that all these things are, not to put too fine a point on it, boiling your piss, which is most satisfactory.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
Well with any luck it turns out the wrong person was a complete c--t anyway, so 2 for the price of 1 (see under Place, Rillington).
The trouble with the Hislop statement is whilst I would agree with it totally, I am pretty sure it's a reasonable bet that plenty of voters would say it is better to execute 99 police murderers and terrorists and one innocent person, rather than put 100 people in prison and eventually let the innocent one out.
Maybe I have too jaundiced view of my fellow Brit.
"can't even find a decent culture to be colonised by"
Ahem. Scotland was conquered and colonised by the English who also, by the by, created the modern world via the industrial revolution, saved the world during the Second World War, abolished slavery in their spare time, and created the greatest empire the world has ever seen, thereby making English the international language, allowing Scots to be (vaguely) understood all over the globe.
if Scotland hadn't been beaten up and enslaved by England, Scots would still be gargling in their weird little Gaelic tongue, and would also be eating lichen.
Irvine Welsh is simply and factually incorrect here. If you are going to be conquered and colonised, you may as well be conquered and colonised by the best: the English.
The whiffs of gently simmering wee coming from you are a tonic, I must say.
WTF does that even mean? Is it meant to be an insult? it's just weird.
Because after years of your various personae insisting that everything was bad for the SNP, indy was dead, the Jocks reely luv the UK etc, etc, all indicators suggest the opposite. You loudly insisting that polls, Brexit, Unionist poster boys jumping ship and Scots generally despising BJ don't matter is a sure indication that all these things are, not to put too fine a point on it, boiling your piss, which is most satisfactory.
Er, OK.
You must think we're idiots, honestly I feel sorry for you Sean
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
Hitler?
Imagine we'd caught him after the Fall of Berlin.
Would you see him hang? I would.
We did not hang Napoleon and he terrorised the whole of Europe for decades.
Napoleon was not a particularly nice man, but I don't think you can equate him with Hitler.
The idea of giving Hitler "life imprisonment" is just absurd. He was a man who deserved to hang, if we had captured him. Likewise several other leading Nazis (who were, rightly, executed after the Nuremberg Trials).
Lock him up forever, throw away the key.
I oppose the death penalty on principle, irrelevant who it is
Locking someone up for ever, presumably in solitary confinement, with no prospect of any release, is arguably a torment worse, and more inhumane, than execution. What's the point in this crueltyt? Why waste the money? So he can repent??
Hitler was never going to repent. Hanging him, after a trial and conviction, would have been the better resolution, if we'd had the choice.
No it wouldn't, I oppose killing people on principle.
Send him to prison and he can stay there for life. That's the humane thing to do, not killing somebody. Doesn't matter who it is.
Some people I would be OK with executing, but my problem is we could never design a system that didn't risk killing an innocent person and that is not OK.
Some people say "ah but what if you're 100% certain" - frankly I don't think its possible to design a system where the penalty would only apply with you being 100% certain, so I'm not, so I'm opposed.
There are cases where you can be a 100% certain. I'm trying to think of an example where there might be an argument about it. Perhaps the brother of the Manchester bomber?
There may be cases, but there are no systems where you can be 100%. Once you cross the rubicon you will have some cases where even though you think you are 100% but turn out to be wrong later on.
But I'd say to people like him he'll never be released and we will let him end his life if he wants to, but otherwise no. We can't be certain that we are certain.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
The wrongful convictions that were overturned years later would like to have a word. There simply is no way to ever be sure.
We do not kill people, we are a 21st Century liberal democracy
Are you telling me that there is doubt about the identity or actions of the guy who shot all those people in that Mosque in New Zealand?
For every case you say is certain (which this one is, despite your attempt at unfair debate), I can point to several where they got it completely wrong
Yes, but they weren't just executing people where there was no doubt, were they? That wasn't a rule back then.
In countries that still do execute people, start with the USA for a start
Yes, and I think that is wrong. Why are you arguing with me?
My point is the idea of certainty is impossible.
I thought you said that you were certain about the guy in New Zealand?
And I then said I am opposed to the death penalty on principle.
It is impossible to be certain in every case and I oppose killing people, really that simple
Well, so am I as it happens, but I was just pointing out that ultimately it comes down to that because there are cases where there is no doubt so Hislop's argument only works in so far as capital punishment should not be used where there is any doubt.
The really interesting dilemma would be, say, if you got some awful child murderer in prison, and he asked for the means to commit suicide, rather than face a lifetime in jail without any prospect of release.
Giving him the means to kill himself would be tantamount to execution. Denying him this option would be pointlessly cruel. What is the right course of action?
I also support legalising euthanasia.
Selective euthanasia is a non-starter, because it degenerates instantaneously into Granny not wanting to go but not wanting to be a burden either, and her children pressuring her in a passive-aggressive way into opting out before all the inheritance goes in nursing home fees.
A Logan's Run scenario where everybody gets it at let's say 70 regardless of personal preference has a yuuuge amount to be said for it.
Anyone who wants euthanasia can have it.
Naaah, execute every last one of the muthas. Only way to be sure.
And then I remembered that this is a cricket forum.
At least cricket is interesting unlike trains.
*ducks*
Ahem .......
Never had you down as a trainspotter, Cyclefree!
Trains take you somewhere interesting. You can see the landscape out of them and you can have adventures when travelling in them. I love travelling by train.
Cricket, OTOH, is the dullest activity I have ever had the misfortune of seeing.
I’m impressed that you’ve lived in England all this time and never once seen bowls on the TV.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
Well with any luck it turns out the wrong person was a complete c--t anyway, so 2 for the price of 1 (see under Place, Rillington).
The trouble with the Hislop statement is whilst I would agree with it totally, I am pretty sure it's a reasonable bet that plenty of voters would say it is better to execute 99 police murderers and terrorists and one innocent person, rather than put 100 people in prison and eventually let the innocent one out.
Maybe I have too jaundiced view of my fellow Brit.
Better to let 100 guilty people go free than to execute an innocent.
But we don't need to let anyone go free - just incarcerate them without possibility of parole. Problem solved.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
Hitler?
Imagine we'd caught him after the Fall of Berlin.
Would you see him hang? I would.
We did not hang Napoleon and he terrorised the whole of Europe for decades.
Napoleon was not a particularly nice man, but I don't think you can equate him with Hitler.
The idea of giving Hitler "life imprisonment" is just absurd. He was a man who deserved to hang, if we had captured him. Likewise several other leading Nazis (who were, rightly, executed after the Nuremberg Trials).
Lock him up forever, throw away the key.
I oppose the death penalty on principle, irrelevant who it is
Locking someone up for ever, presumably in solitary confinement, with no prospect of any release, is arguably a torment worse, and more inhumane, than execution. What's the point in this crueltyt? Why waste the money? So he can repent??
Hitler was never going to repent. Hanging him, after a trial and conviction, would have been the better resolution, if we'd had the choice.
No it wouldn't, I oppose killing people on principle.
Send him to prison and he can stay there for life. That's the humane thing to do, not killing somebody. Doesn't matter who it is.
Some people I would be OK with executing, but my problem is we could never design a system that didn't risk killing an innocent person and that is not OK.
Some people say "ah but what if you're 100% certain" - frankly I don't think its possible to design a system where the penalty would only apply with you being 100% certain, so I'm not, so I'm opposed.
There are cases where you can be a 100% certain. I'm trying to think of an example where there might be an argument about it. Perhaps the brother of the Manchester bomber?
There may be cases, but there are no systems where you can be 100%. Once you cross the rubicon you will have some cases where even though you think you are 100% but turn out to be wrong later on.
But I'd say to people like him he'll never be released and we will let him end his life if he wants to, but otherwise no. We can't be certain that we are certain.
I don't see much moral difference between execution and allowing guilt-ridden prisoners the right to and means to take their own lives, via, say, lethal drugs.
He's one of them, and as long as he appears to be so, they really don't care what he does or whether the reality of his Presidency relates in any way to how he portrays it and they perceive it.
But he's not "one of them" and he does not "appear to be so". It's bonkers. Trump has never been "Joe Sixpack" or claimed to be. He claims to be a highly successful businessman worth billions. He doesn't go to church, he doesn't drink, he doesn't seem much interested in sports, he's never had anything approaching a normal job, he's a multiple times draft dodger, he was a registered Democrat, and he's from New York.
How can any normal middle-of-the-road American from a "flyover state" think that Donald Trump is one of them? He's the very thing they ought to be against.
And then I remembered that this is a cricket forum.
Cricket seems to unite us across politics on this forum
Pity other things more important do not
I think most agree the death penalty must never be reintroduced
I don't. If we are prepared to bomb our enemies, killing innocents, I can be persuaded that we should execute convicted child murderers.
Well your views depend on which personality you adopt that day, eh Sean
i have no idea who "Sean" is, but I am tired of this epicene liberal hypocrisy which tolerates bombing during wars (which kills babies) but shrivels in pearl-clutching horror at hanging the likes of Fred West.
You are Sean, well your last alter-ego/voice in your head was Sean.
The fact you still deny it's you when we all know it is, is the tragic thing.
lol
Presumably you'll be off soon and back with a new personality, I'll be sure to look out for it
Surely the nub of the matter is that every personality is the same.
The writing style is the same, his personality changes depending on the day, as do his views.
Yesterday evening he was channeling his inner Robespierre.
Comments
The fact you still deny it's you when we all know it is, is the tragic thing.
Without DRS we could be in a very different situation right now.
I vaguely recall an anecdote to that effect.
Braveheart is an excellent film, whatever its inaccuracies. Simple but superb story telling. Vivid and compelling. It's just a shame it overshadowed the even better Rob Roy, which came out at about the same time, and has one of the greatest scripts of any British movie ever made.
We do not kill people, we are a 21st Century liberal democracy
So when you carp on about "Oh, he hates the UN, he hates the UN," just remember he started the whole thing!
Imagine we'd caught him after the Fall of Berlin.
Would you see him hang? I would.
But seriously, there are some areas I know, including much of Wales, and I feel confident to discuss them. In other areas, like those I mentioned, when I opine I do tend to end up looking a fool.
So - lesson learned - I keep away from them.
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1305204493412376578?s=21
I have no doubt we are heading there - and I would consider emigrating and renouncing my citizenship if such a policy was introduced
I’m hoping it’s a typo.
The idea of giving Hitler "life imprisonment" is just absurd. He was a man who deserved to hang, if we had captured him. Likewise several other leading Nazis (who were, rightly, executed after the Nuremberg Trials).
The How do you rate the he economy question asked at 2012, 2014, 2016 and 2018 is a light bulb moment.
53% of respondents said the economy was excellent or good in 2018 and then they shellaced the GOP anyways.
That figure is down to 38% now.
I oppose the death penalty on principle, irrelevant who it is
(This is not intended to be taken entirely seriously.)
It is impossible to be certain in every case and I oppose killing people, really that simple
Hitler was never going to repent. Hanging him, after a trial and conviction, would have been the better resolution, if we'd had the choice.
Send him to prison and he can stay there for life. That's the humane thing to do, not killing somebody. Doesn't matter who it is.
Mother, should I run for President?
Mother, should I trust the government?"
And if they are guilty the surely a more inhumane punishment is better than letting their torment end.
Giving him the means to kill himself would be tantamount to execution. Denying him this option would be pointlessly cruel. What is the right course of action?
Cricket, OTOH, is the dullest activity I have ever had the misfortune of seeing.
Some people say "ah but what if you're 100% certain" - frankly I don't think its possible to design a system where the penalty would only apply with you being 100% certain, so I'm not, so I'm opposed.
A description it shares with this:
https://www2.gov.scot/resource/0042/00422987.pdf
I wouldn't miss any of these murderers but the truth is - as you say - we will kill the wrong person. Then they're dead.
I'd support it for both. Say to certain people "we will never release you, we won't kill you, but if you want to die we will facilitate it for you."
A Logan's Run scenario where everybody gets it at let's say 70 regardless of personal preference has a yuuuge amount to be said for it.
I don't have a good feeling on this. Just don't trust the polls.
As I noted earlier he's ahead on the economy.
I am not pro-death penalty, I can see the good arguments against. But I can also see the arguments in favour. For me it can be finely balanced, at least for extreme cases (like confessed child killers)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8728203/Trump-says-negotiate-term-White-House-hes-entitled-it.html
Jos Buttler stumped somebody.
Oh, and England won a cricket match as well.
Australia are Spurs tonight - toothless
Maybe I have too jaundiced view of my fellow Brit.
But I'd say to people like him he'll never be released and we will let him end his life if he wants to, but otherwise no. We can't be certain that we are certain.
I think fines should be a proportion of income, to be honest
But we don't need to let anyone go free - just incarcerate them without possibility of parole. Problem solved.
Isn't that just execution by proxy?
How can any normal middle-of-the-road American from a "flyover state" think that Donald Trump is one of them? He's the very thing they ought to be against.