MilitaryForums.co.uk

And there was me thinking I couldn't hate anyone as much as Maggie!?

Sisyphus, you have let personal enmity cloud your judgement young Jedi.
Execution has to be for the crime; not because you got out of the wrong side of bed!

However Blair still takes the walk, but keep it sane it has to be humane!

I agree

However, and more to the point in Portaloo`s case,

Remember Bill Clinton?

Old Bill (don`t get all wet Wholley, it`s not that old bill ) once famously admitted that, as a student, he`d smoked canabis. However, since he never inhaled, it didn`t count.

Can you see where this is going ladies?

Well Micke-ey once "flirted" with homosexuality but since he never took it any further(Pardon ) it didn`t count Really?

So, girls, my question is, "what did he do when he was "flirting""
Was he a wide receiver who clenched?
Did he suck guys off but never swallow?

I think these questions are very important Michael,


Beefers, oi luvsem

Rogue Chef wrote:Sisyphus, you have let personal emnity cloud your judgement young Jedi.
Execution has to be for the crime; not because you got out of the wrong side of bed!
However Blair still takes the walk, but keep it sane it has to be humane!

But logic argues against 'humane execution', which is an oxymoron.

Murder is murder whether by the individual or the state and, so, no execution can be 'humane'.

As for Blair: you mistake total, utter and abject contempt for enmity.

Mind you, I'll admit to cheering to the rafters when he won in '97


So many hopes dashed by the effects of power corrupting absolutely

My sentiments entirely.

I have been a party member since God's dog was a lad.

New Labour means jack to me.

Yes, yes, yes! We know all about that fiasco.
My country is in tatters on the strength of the lies of that half-wit and the dunces that put him in power! Duh!

But getting back on track; assuming that it is possible to have humane execution, who would be for the chop and why?

Wait a minute.............what about all the dipsticks that voted for that nob on three consecutive occasions, surely they have to take some responsibility. Not execution, that would be a bit severe, just some light maiming should do the trick!

Tight lines!

Rogue Chef wrote:Yes, yes, yes! We know all about that fiasco.
My country is in tatters on the strength of the lies of that half-wit and the dunces that put him in power! Duh!

But getting back on track; assuming that it is possible to have humane execution, who would be for the chop and why?

Wait a minute.............what about all the dipsticks that voted for that nob on three consecutive occasions

Good question: presumably the same people who voted three times for that megalomaniac Thatcher and crossed the Floor hoping for something better. [remember her? The nutter who said there's no such thing as society and initiated the 'me, me, more, more' society whose fruits are now being realized in the anarchy that is taking root amongst........ Sorry! I'm digressing!

Anyway, why assume anything - all that does is make an ass of u and me

Neverthless the question precisely highlights one of the many significant problems with the proposition. Wherever the line is drawn someone else will think is should be drawn somewhere else.

I often wonder that if all those that are against capital punishment would feel the same if some one had tortured and killed one of their children. The person gets life and then you meet that person walking down the street a few years later as he has been released early. Or that person goes on to kill again after being released.

Or the jurors who found them guilty bumping into Klitschko's parents/Sally Clarke's husband and child [etc...] after they'd been hung for crimes they didn't commit?

Yes, yes, yes! We know all about that fiasco.

But getting back on track; assuming that it is possible to have humane execution, who would be for the chop and why?

What about all the dipsticks that voted for that nob and Maggie on three consecutive occasions? The net gets larger as the noose tightens!

I'm becoming moist with anticipation!

Rogue Chef wrote:Yes, yes, yes! We know all about that fiasco.

But getting back on track; assuming that it is possible to have humane execution, who would be for the chop and why?

What about all the dipsticks that voted for that nob and Maggie on three consecutive occasions? The net gets larger as the noose tightens!

I'm becoming moist with anticipation!

What?

Third election win? Try organised postal vote fraud...

We are all assuming that we live in a civilised community,when the facts are against that assumption.We have at least one person murdered in cold blood every day of the year.Most of the murderers will plea bargain a Manslaughter charge,and be out to do it again in 5-10 years,because they have no fear of prison life.Prison should be a means of redeeming such people, but that theory is not working,so why not revert to the Victorian principle of using prison as a punishment,make life so harsh that even six months is enough to slow down the so called hard men.When murder is proven beyond doubt, hang the bastards,along with all proven terrorists.


Owdun.

Yes yes yes, but what about Portillo?
Did he swallow or did he spit?
I think we should be told.

And was his "friend" well-hung

owdun wrote:We are all assuming that we live in a civilised community,when the facts are against that assumption.We have at least one person murdered in cold blood every day of the year.Most of the murderers will plea bargain a Manslaughter charge,and be out to do it again in 5-10 years,because they have no fear of prison life.Prison should be a means of redeeming such people, but that theory is not working,so why not revert to the Victorian principle of using prison as a punishment,make life so harsh that even six months is enough to slow down the so called hard men.When murder is proven beyond doubt, hang the bastards,along with all proven terrorists.


Owdun.

Finally, some common sense.

owdun wrote:We are all assuming that we live in a civilised community,when the facts are against that assumption. Most of the murderers will plea bargain a Manslaughter charge,and be out to do it again in 5-10 years,because they have no fear of prison life.Prison should be a means of redeeming such people, but that theory is not working,so why not revert to the Victorian principle of using prison as a punishment,make life so harsh that even six months is enough to slow down the so called hard men.When murder is proven beyond doubt, hang the bastards,along with all proven terrorists.
Owdun.

owdun

Even if your comment about us not living in a civilized community were true, then we should be aspiring to live in one.

Murderers [or, rather, criminals] can't plea bargain in the UK - that's a Yank legal 'tool'.

Murder/manslaughter is precisely defined in English [British] law. Judges and juries have to act within the law.

I fully agree with you on punishment being severe and that life should mean life! I also agree that prison seems to hold little fear for criminals [or some of them, anyway].
Having said that, it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the death penalty is no deterrence to murder, either. US prisons are full [well, you know what I mean] with prisoners on death row.

The three leading 'exponents', by far, of the death penalty (by numbers executed) are China, Iran and the US. I'd prefer to live in a civilised country, rather than join that club.