The death penalty.

[ban-all-sheds]

Oh well - if we have to accept the deaths of children because it raises revenue then that's OK is it?

No, we have to accept the deaths of children because some risks are unavoidable

Explain to me why allowing people to smoke is unavoidable.

Explain to me why allowing people to drive at more than 5mph in built-up areas is unavoidable.

We don't have to accept the deaths of children from known and avoidable risks,

But we do have to accept the deaths of innocent people when we adopt a policy of using killing as a means of social control, do we?

If your child was killed by the state because of lies, evidence falsification and suppression by the police, and false testimony elicited by the police torturing people you'd just accept that as unavoidable would you?

 

[megawatt]

If your child was killed by the state because of lies, evidence falsification and suppression by the police, and false testimony elicited by the police torturing people you'd just accept that as unavoidable would you?

You really have lost the plot big style today old fella.

Have you any idea how extreme you appear?

You need to calm down and get a little perspective.

MW

 

[ban-all-sheds]

BAS has forgotten to take his medication today and all those unpleasant thoughts running round inside his head have started to flow out onto his keyboard.

There you go again, trying to delude yourself that my loathing for you couldn't possibly be because you are loathsome, that somehow there is something wrong with someone who doesn't want to kill and torture other human beings.

Unpleasant thoughts in my head?

The thoughts in yours are of wanting to kill and torture people...

 

[sooey]

If your child was killed by the state because of lies, evidence falsification and suppression by the police, and false testimony elicited by the police torturing people you'd just accept that as unavoidable would you?

In the same way that you would accept it as an acceptable risk if you're child was raped and killed by a known paedophile out on licence I suppose.

As joe-90 said, this argument is now pointless, I think that your views are in the minority in this country. Even if they currently hold more sway than they should as a result of them being the views of the chattering classes. Hopefully we will reach a point when these views are discredited, and this country can be run by more sensible means than pc doctrine.

 

[megawatt]

The thoughts in yours are of wanting to kill and torture people...

One individual in particular maybe

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If your child was killed by the state because of lies, evidence falsification and suppression by the police, and false testimony elicited by the police torturing people you'd just accept that as unavoidable would you?

You really have lost the plot big style today old fella.

Have you any idea how extreme you appear?

You want to kill and torture people, and you call me extreme?

You know that sometimes the police lie and cheat, and you think that recognising that is losing the plot?

You know that if we use killing as a means of control we will end up killing innocent people, but still you want to see killing and torture used by the state.

Just how would you feel if our civilised society lied and cheated in order to kill your innocent child?

 

[megawatt]

All I know is that you're really making a fool of yourself.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

In the same way that you would accept it as an acceptable risk if you're child was raped and killed by a known paedophile out on licence I suppose.

But you tell me that that is an unacceptable risk.

When I tell you that the risk of the state deliberately killing innocent people is unacceptable you say it's not.

You tell me that it's a completely avoidable risk that must be avoided by never letting them out.

When I tell you that the risk of the state deliberately killing innocent people is a completely avoidable one that must be avoided by not using killing as a means of control, you say it's not.

Hopefully we will reach a point when these views are discredited, and this country can be run by more sensible means than pc doctrine.

Dream on. Or if you are so keen to live somewhere where they use killing leave here and go somewhere where they already have it.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

All I know is that you're really making a fool of yourself.

So you don't know that the police sometimes lie and cheat?

And you don't know that if we use killing as a means of control we will end up killing innocent people?

Don't you think that facts like that are of great significance in deciding the merits of the use of killing by the state?

Or don't you want to be confused by the facts?

Just how would you feel if our civilised society lied and cheated in order to kill your innocent child?

 

[Shytalkz]

Ranting doesn't make your pov right, you know Ban - even Joe seems quite subdued tonight in comparison to your diatribes.

You're going on as if Meg was saying that he personally wanted to carry out torture and killing; whereas what he was actually saying was that he supported the use of either by the state, following due legal process. That's somewhat different to the vigilantism that you seem to think that he is advocating.

The likelihood of the scenarios that you paint are so small as to be insignificant. Of course there's a small chance of an innocent person getting done in, but that's no reason to not do it. There's far more chance of our kids being done in by some knife-wielding maniac than there ever would be of their being put to death by the state under some fit-up by plod. Keep it in context.

There is a part of me that thinks that just maybe your comments are intended as one big wah, you know....

 

[megawatt]

I don't believe that people are

killed by the state because of lies, evidence falsification and suppression by the police, and false testimony elicited by the police torturing people

... No

You've been reading far too much fiction and its time you took a sanity check.

Perhaps you could start by reading back some of the drivel you've written today once you've sobered up or come down off the trip you're on and perhaps you'll see just like the rest of us how stupid you look.

MW

 

[sooey]

sooey wrote:
In the same way that you would accept it as an acceptable risk if you're child was raped and killed by a known paedophile out on licence I suppose.

But you tell me that that is an unacceptable risk.

When I tell you that the risk of the state deliberately killing innocent people is unacceptable you say it's not.

You tell me that it's a completely avoidable risk that must be avoided by never letting them out.

When I tell you that the risk of the state deliberately killing innocent people is a completely avoidable one that must be avoided by not using killing as a means of control, you say it's not.

It's called having different views.
[/quote]

 

[sooey]

Dream on. Or if you are so keen to live somewhere where they use killing leave here and go somewhere where they already have it.

No, I'll stay here I think, after all there are enough killings here to satisfy the most savage of beasts.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Ranting doesn't make your pov right, you know Ban - even Joe seems quite subdued tonight in comparison to your diatribes.

Funny, isn't it, that someone can feel genuinely revolted by the idea that killing and torturing are good things, and that our country should adopt them, and not just treat it all as some big joke.

It is not a joke to those who are killed or tortured, or who have loved ones killed or tortured.

And it is not a joke to me, and I will not hold back from letting people who want to kill and torture just how repulsive they are.

You're going on as if Meg was saying that he personally wanted to carry out torture and killing; whereas what he was actually saying was that he supported the use of either by the state, following due legal process.

So are you going to call him a liar, or am I going to call you one, for one of those must be true:

In these cases those people should be executed for the good of the many and, if they need someone to volunteer to stick the needle in, fit the noose, wield the axe, flick the switch or even foot the leckie bill ... I hereby volunteer.

The likelihood of the scenarios that you paint are so small as to be insignificant. Of course there's a small chance of an innocent person getting done in, but that's no reason to not do it.

That is every reason not to do it.

It's not the only reason, but it is enough in itself.

There's far more chance of our kids being done in by some knife-wielding maniac than there ever would be of their being put to death by the state under some fit-up by plod. Keep it in context.

Well excuse me for expecting the state and its organs of law enforcement to keep me safer than a knife-wielding maniac, or to exhibit more civilised and restrained behaviour.

There should be no chance, none whatsoever, not just an insignificant one, of being put to death by the state under some fit-up.

There is a part of me that thinks that just maybe your comments are intended as one big wah, you know....

Yet again you join the ranks of those who are so morally bankrupt that they just cannot believe that anyone would find deliberate killing and torture as a means of control to be indescribably vile.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I don't believe that people are

killed by the state because of lies, evidence falsification and suppression by the police, and false testimony elicited by the police torturing people

... No

Don't believe they are?

Well - we don't kill convicted criminals any more, so they aren't, but I didn't say they were, I said they would be if we re-introduced killing.

You've been reading far too much fiction and its time you took a sanity check.

Fiction?

Is that what you call facts that you'd rather not be confused by because they contradict your arguments?

Perhaps you could start by reading back some of the drivel you've written today once you've sobered up or come down off the trip you're on and perhaps you'll see just like the rest of us how stupid you look.

Perhaps you could start by reading what happened in the investigations of the Guildford and Birmingham pub bombings, and the trials of the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six and the Maguire Seven.

Perhaps you'd like to show how under your system of punishment killings people found guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, of murder and terrorism would not have been put to death. Could you manage that without showing the rest of us how stupid you look?

Perhaps you'd like to explain how when the Lord Chief Justice said that the police had lied and fabricated evidence that he was actually writing fiction. Could you manage that without showing the rest of us how stupid you look?

Perhaps you'd like to explain how when the Court of Appeal ruled that the police had beaten confessions out of people, and withheld evidence which showed them to be innocent that the court was actually making all that up. Could you manage that without showing the rest of us how stupid you look?