"Currants Bw..."

[Mac76]

Aren’t you essentially putting down the place by inferring that the prevalence of people with different skin colour and religion is destroying the social fabric of this country.

I genuinely don’t know where you come down on this subject, but ultimately yes I understand the fear of cultural dilution but it is less caused by people of different skin colour than it is the one way street approach of respect for diversity. Cultures change over time, we no longer tie people to stones and stab them through the heart in sacrifice to our different gods…we have adopted the monotheistic religion of Christianity from the Middle East.

The language has changed down the centuries to incorporate Saxon and Latin.

But I suspect the culture you’re worried about losing is the Protestant Christian one that is less than 500 years old. Of course we have a right to have an English culture, and I’m equally dismissive of those who consider that to be English is to be small minded, parochial and have a hatred of others.

But cultures over any period of time are ephemeral, I don’t think we are in danger of becoming more Islamic in culture, but we absolutely need to push back against moronic Islamism. If people take offence at images of the prophet that appear in comedy or even school text books that’s their problem. It should not be allowed for people to live here without learning the language or having contempt for our westernised way of life. If they chose to leave Pakistan for example to come here, If they want to live here they are their descendants need to think of themselves as British first and Pakistani second.

Because in my view a society that regards women as chattel the way they are in Pakistan is inferior (I should note im using Pakistan as a paradigm case)

But mass migration is not just part of Britain, it’s part of the worlds history. Homo Sapiens are naturally itinerant, and whilst we need the sense of identity that is bestowed upon us through nationhood, what that nation is…is rarely left unaltered over time

I'm probably in more or less the same place on this

[HCZ_Reborn]

It's wrong on principle, no exceptions - as soon as it was introduced it would widen out and we'd back in the land of irreservable miscarraiges of justice

Wrong on principle I’m not sure. Because then where do you draw the line, are you saying it’s wrong to take a life no matter the context? I’m sure you’re not.

As a matter of principle, i think there are certain crimes that there can be no redemption for. That the perpetrator of which deserves to die for.

But the problem is what is achieved, capital punishment demonstrably has no deterrent effect. Laid bare by the simple truth that almost no one commits a crime expecting to be caught.

There is also as you’ve touched on the risk of the injustice of executing an innocent person, and the one that I don’t think gets considered enough creating a martyr out of dangerous fanatics who have committed terrible crimes in furtherance of their cause.

I personally have no issue with shoot to kill in terms of neutralising active threats, even though it may lead to horrendously unjust outcomes such as Jean Charles De Menezies. In fact the insistence that we should try and capture people alive seems to put more consideration on the life of the suspect rather than those innocents they may target. I had no issue with US special forces taking out Osama Bin Laden either.

But there is something cruel in keeping someone in confinement until an allotted time when you take their life in clinical cold blood. Of course there are people who have faced this fate who deserved it (Ted Bundy and Saddam Hussein for example). I think the War crimes tribunals were right to execute those convicted at Nuremberg as they were implacably evil men.

So I have no sense of compassion for the condemned unless they did not do it. But I don’t think a society should routinely practice cruelty. Japan for example, it’s death penalty system is markedly so because of not only an inordinately high conviction rate which leads to a strong possibility for miscarriage of justice but the fact that the condemned is not notified of their execution until the day it happens. So they awake every morning wondering if it will be their last day on earth This is something that can go on for years, only in the last five years were those responsible for the Tokyo subway Sarin attacks, put to death…and on one hand fuck them what they did was evil and they deserve to die, on the other hand how can Japan signify itself as being less brutal if it engages in effective psychological torture.

[Mac76]

Wrong on principle I’m not sure. Because then where do you draw the line, are you saying it’s wrong to take a life no matter the context? I’m sure you’re not.

As a matter of principle, i think there are certain crimes that there can be no redemption for. That the perpetrator of which deserves to die for.

But the problem is what is achieved, capital punishment demonstrably has no deterrent effect. Laid bare by the simple truth that almost no one commits a crime expecting to be caught.

There is also as you’ve touched on the risk of the injustice of executing an innocent person, and the one that I don’t think gets considered enough creating a martyr out of dangerous fanatics who have committed terrible crimes in furtherance of their cause.

I personally have no issue with shoot to kill in terms of neutralising active threats, even though it may lead to horrendously unjust outcomes such as Jean Charles De Menezies. In fact the insistence that we should try and capture people alive seems to put more consideration on the life of the suspect rather than those innocents they may target. I had no issue with US special forces taking out Osama Bin Laden either.

But there is something cruel in keeping someone in confinement until an allotted time when you take their life in clinical cold blood. Of course there are people who have faced this fate who deserved it (Ted Bundy and Saddam Hussein for example). I think the War crimes tribunals were right to execute those convicted at Nuremberg as they were implacably evil men.

So I have no sense of compassion for the condemned unless they did not do it. But I don’t think a society should routinely practice cruelty. Japan for example, it’s death penalty system is markedly so because of not only an inordinately high conviction rate which leads to a strong possibility for miscarriage of justice but the fact that the condemned is not notified of their execution until the day it happens. So they awake every morning wondering if it will be their last day on earth This is something that can go on for years, only in the last five years were those responsible for the Tokyo subway Sarin attacks, put to death…and on one hand fuck them what they did was evil and they deserve to die, on the other hand how can Japan signify itself as being less brutal if it engages in effective psychological torture.

For me there are at least four big reasons why I'm against it:

1. if a killer knows they will die if they are caught, they are more likely to kill or harm again in order to avoid being caught
2. miscarraiges of justice
3. if, outside situations of war, killing is wrong then the state needs to recognise that in sentencing
4. the martyr/hero point you make

As for the de Menezies murder - for that is what it was - it was appalling and all the officers involved should have gone to jail - likewise the Ian Tomlinson murder (for that was what it was) - i still cannot understand how a cop can be captured on video proactively attacking a member of the public for no apparent reason, causing their death, and get away with it - they should all be doing life

[Niall_Quinn]

Then…

Eh? So to be tolerate you have to abandon your culture?

And tolerance is just that. It's not subjugation or submission.

Learn the English language before you start laughing at people.

[Niall_Quinn]

Aren’t you essentially putting down the place by inferring that the prevalence of people with different skin colour and religion is destroying the social fabric of this country.

I genuinely don’t know where you come down on this subject, but ultimately yes I understand the fear of cultural dilution but it is less caused by people of different skin colour than it is the one way street approach of respect for diversity. Cultures change over time, we no longer tie people to stones and stab them through the heart in sacrifice to our different gods…we have adopted the monotheistic religion of Christianity from the Middle East.

The language has changed down the centuries to incorporate Saxon and Latin.

But I suspect the culture you’re worried about losing is the Protestant Christian one that is less than 500 years old. Of course we have a right to have an English culture, and I’m equally dismissive of those who consider that to be English is to be small minded, parochial and have a hatred of others.

But cultures over any period of time are ephemeral, I don’t think we are in danger of becoming more Islamic in culture, but we absolutely need to push back against moronic Islamism. If people take offence at images of the prophet that appear in comedy or even school text books that’s their problem. It should not be allowed for people to live here without learning the language or having contempt for our westernised way of life. If they chose to leave Pakistan for example to come here, If they want to live here they are their descendants need to think of themselves as British first and Pakistani second.

Because in my view a society that regards women as chattel the way they are in Pakistan is inferior (I should note im using Pakistan as a paradigm case)

But mass migration is not just part of Britain, it’s part of the worlds history. Homo Sapiens are naturally itinerant, and whilst we need the sense of identity that is bestowed upon us through nationhood, what that nation is…is rarely left unaltered over time

I didn't mention skin colour btw.

I disagree on Islam being a direct cultural threat to the west. Their most influential imams in this country make no secret of their intentions and often double down when directly confronted with the evidence. And we already have Sharia operating in select areas, in effect if not by codified authority.

I'm not at all against migration. But there needs to be a system in place the ensures it is advantageous to the nation as opposed to detrimental. For many reasons, economic and social. Flooding the place with people who offer nothing except a burden on the rest of us, when we already have self inflicted burdens to bear through our insistence on tolerating government (now that's some real tolerance right there). Want an Indian doctor or nurse to come in and help out the NHS - works for me. Want an Indian beggar to come in and on the dole - no thanks. To a moron that's a racist point of view. In fact any and every question raise about the singularly non-beneficial immigration happening across the west is met by the usual throwaway accusations and a rapid refusal to answer logical requests.

And somebody better step up and fix this because nothing at all good can come of it.

[Letters]

I'm not at all against migration. But there needs to be a system in place the ensures it is advantageous to the nation as opposed to detrimental. For many reasons, economic and social. Flooding the place with people who offer nothing except a burden on the rest of us, when we already have self inflicted burdens to bear through our insistence on tolerating government (now that's some real tolerance right there). Want an Indian doctor or nurse to come in and help out the NHS - works for me. Want an Indian beggar to come in and on the dole - no thanks. To a moron that's a racist point of view.

I don't think it's a racist point of view. The racist point of view is the latter type of immigration is the thing that's "flooding the place".
Or the old adage from Daily Mail reading gammons that asylum seekers come over here and immediately get given a house with butler and chauffer.
The actual reality is that the advantageous type of migration is by far the most common kind, and asylum seekers are not exactly living in luxury.

[Marc Overmars]

Letby given a whole life sentence, fairly inevitably.

EDIT: One of those cases which does give me pause about the death sentence. I am generally against but with cases like this it does feel there’s a good argument for it. My main reason for being against is miscarriages of justice, of which there are plenty of examples

I feel the same but death would also be too kind for that piece of shit.

Let her rot.

[Letters]

I feel the same but death would also be too kind for that piece of shit.

Let her rot.

I suspect she may be a bit “accident prone” in prison

[HCZ_Reborn]

I suspect she may be a bit “accident prone” in prison

She will be kept segregated from general population. Otherwise every child murderer and nonce in prison would be dead inside of 72 hours

[Letters]

She will be kept segregated from general population. Otherwise every child murderer and nonce in prison would be dead inside of 72 hours

And that, to answer your question, is what capital punishment achieves.
This woman will be kept alive, housed, fed and protected, for the rest of her life. Which is likely to be 50 years or more. It does feel like a massive waste of resources. But overall the miscarriage of justice thing tips the balance against for me.