The Hornets' Nest II
- Thread starter geitungur akureyrar
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
BB - I love different points of view - without it there would be no worthwhile threads. To me the death penalty debate is dreary because to excuse a pun it has been done to death. The first time I encountered it was at school in 1962 - 50 years ago - and the same arguments are used now as then. There is no right or wrong on the issue - only people's points of view as you say. I think the majority in this country favour the death penalty for murder at least. Thankfully we elect politicians in order to prevent our baser selves from creating the law. Most civilised humane societies these days have come to realise that the death penalty is wrong.
It is too easy to whip the populace into a frenzy - our press do it all the time so if decisions went always to referenda we would get in my opinion some nasty laws.
Your second paragraph is proof of that. Almost alone on this board I am fervently opposed to war and its glorification. The press make sure the majority here accept the evils you mention. We should not be in Afghanistan and should not have gone into Iraq. However we are an ex-colonial power and make billlions from weapons sales and this country has a history of glorifying war. People talk about the positive side of giving young men a job and training by being in the army but to me that is sick. We could spend that same money instead on worthwhile apprenticeships and building constructive worthwhile jobs and careers. I will be taken to task but believe the government deliberately uses the armed forces to take the poorer and less educated members of our society who cannot get jobs and sends them to fight and perhaps get injured and die as an easy way of getting rid of them. Of course it then has to dress it all up in glory and Royal Wooton Basset, Poppy Day and all the paraphernalia that goes with maintaining a war society. It successfully hoodwinks the vast majority who come to believe that if you don't wear your poppy with pride you are somehow less patriotic. That is rubbish and always has been - poppies if worn at all should be worn with shame at a society that kills its own young men. As for remembrance of those sucked into their maiming and deaths we should do so with quiet dignity and respect not a media circus.
My opinions only of course
It is too easy to whip the populace into a frenzy - our press do it all the time so if decisions went always to referenda we would get in my opinion some nasty laws.
Your second paragraph is proof of that. Almost alone on this board I am fervently opposed to war and its glorification. The press make sure the majority here accept the evils you mention. We should not be in Afghanistan and should not have gone into Iraq. However we are an ex-colonial power and make billlions from weapons sales and this country has a history of glorifying war. People talk about the positive side of giving young men a job and training by being in the army but to me that is sick. We could spend that same money instead on worthwhile apprenticeships and building constructive worthwhile jobs and careers. I will be taken to task but believe the government deliberately uses the armed forces to take the poorer and less educated members of our society who cannot get jobs and sends them to fight and perhaps get injured and die as an easy way of getting rid of them. Of course it then has to dress it all up in glory and Royal Wooton Basset, Poppy Day and all the paraphernalia that goes with maintaining a war society. It successfully hoodwinks the vast majority who come to believe that if you don't wear your poppy with pride you are somehow less patriotic. That is rubbish and always has been - poppies if worn at all should be worn with shame at a society that kills its own young men. As for remembrance of those sucked into their maiming and deaths we should do so with quiet dignity and respect not a media circus.
My opinions only of course
BB I'm inclined to agree with you about our politicians' double standards about soldiers fighting overseas. I think on the capital punishment issue it's disingenuous to suggest those in favour of it are not allowed to say so...indeed there are MPs in favour of it, though they are in a minority. For better or worse, we get to choose our MPs and many do on the basis of their beliefs about such issues as capital punishment. We can't keep returning to another referendum every time an already often debated issue raises its head. Aside from the mythology, fostered by the popular press, about what most people actually want, it would make national decision-making subject to all kinds of whims and fashions. No taxes anyone? Free beer? For me, the debate has been had, many times and in considerable depth, and the conclusion that capital punishment was inappropriate in a civilised state was not arrived at without taking opposing views into account.
Great stuff this and nothing dreary about the debate and topics at all - personally I do not agree with Capital Punishment, but for murder, life should mean life with no chance of any parole.
Of course I will always disagree with Lenny and his view that Poppies are used to glorify and commercialise war - for me they are just a way to remember those you gave so much in the past.
What I would be interested to discover are what comments are close to being racist - clearly racism was not the motivation behind these vile crimes. It was the desire of Asian men to sexually abuse British children - what is racist about stating that truth? My rant is that the BBC has stayed very clear of this trial and a similar one on Derby - why was that?
Of course I will always disagree with Lenny and his view that Poppies are used to glorify and commercialise war - for me they are just a way to remember those you gave so much in the past.
What I would be interested to discover are what comments are close to being racist - clearly racism was not the motivation behind these vile crimes. It was the desire of Asian men to sexually abuse British children - what is racist about stating that truth? My rant is that the BBC has stayed very clear of this trial and a similar one on Derby - why was that?
There was a small interview with Louis Saha the French footballer on newsnight last night. He has just written a book about football and racial attitudes.
He stated in the interview that he has found that England is far more tolerant than France. He has received abuse in France over his colour, but not in England. I was fairly surprised at this statement, and wondered why. He didn't have an answer.
He stated in the interview that he has found that England is far more tolerant than France. He has received abuse in France over his colour, but not in England. I was fairly surprised at this statement, and wondered why. He didn't have an answer.
I'd take you to task over that statement. Can you actually point me in the direction of a Party Manifesto that specifically stipulates that Party's stance on capital punishment? It is never an issue at election time, and the reason that it is never an issue now is that, since 2004, the UK is no longer allowed to legislate on it. So whether or not that makes us a civilised state - arguable IMO - is irrelevant as we are stuck with it. Just as we are stuck with the increasing number of 'relevant' offences - those for which a prison sentence doesn't seem to act as a deterrent either.
I think that capital punishment is a no-go these days.
The simple fact is...most executions that take place in the US cost more than keeping them locked up all their life. The fact is..money does matter. If I were to bring back capital punishment, it would have to be efficient....£1 bullet to the head anyone?
I do not believe in an eye for an eye, I think that as long as people can change and ultimately be brought back into society so that they can contribute...then they deserve to live. If someone keeps re-offending serious crimes e.g. murder, is a burden to society and has no hope at changing.... then they might as well die, and not waste money that could be put to good use whilst they're at it.
But...that will never happen, and I'm not in favour of capital punishment just as a form of "greater" punishment. If it's not cost efficient then let them rot.
The simple fact is...most executions that take place in the US cost more than keeping them locked up all their life. The fact is..money does matter. If I were to bring back capital punishment, it would have to be efficient....£1 bullet to the head anyone?
I do not believe in an eye for an eye, I think that as long as people can change and ultimately be brought back into society so that they can contribute...then they deserve to live. If someone keeps re-offending serious crimes e.g. murder, is a burden to society and has no hope at changing.... then they might as well die, and not waste money that could be put to good use whilst they're at it.
But...that will never happen, and I'm not in favour of capital punishment just as a form of "greater" punishment. If it's not cost efficient then let them rot.
Reverse order
"take them straight to the airport and deport them back from whence they came. No appeals, no tribunals, no lawyers - straight back on the first plane"
Do you know where these people were born? If not then you are judging them on the colour of their skin and their religion.
I will disagree with almost everyone on here about Poppies I know. Many of you have links into the armed forces or other services like the police which I expect pre-disposes you to see the remembrance side without seeing how much you are being used by the press and government to support their atrocious wars. They do nothing to stop intervening and actually saving these poor young men - and never will while the population turns out as they do. The day people start going to poppy day ceremonies and booing politicians who support war we might see some change.
Agree on life imprisonment life should be life and without too many privileges and perks prisoners get. If you made a mistake you can then compensate the wronged prisoner - you cannot bring them back to life
pie wants to be an aeronautical engineer in the RAF - I assume they stay behind.
In Jersey, anyone who joins up does so into the British Forces. I wonder if Senator Ian Gorst (our First Minister) said to David Cameron or the Defence Secretary that he wants everyone who enlisted in Jersey to be withdrawn from the front line whether he would get that.
w_y, I agree with you re the poppies - I just wish the focus wasn't always on Europe as my Grandad served in Burma so VJ Day has more significance for me than VE Day.
Today is Liberation Day in the CI. I remember once that someone from the national media said that the Germans had been welcomed here in WWII - that person has obviously never been to Jersey or if they have, didn't go to the War tunnels, seen the bunkers or gone to either of the museums here. There were no British Forces here to defend us which is why I make my comment about the political situation if the Jersey Govt tried to get those from Jersey in the Forces taken from the front line - the first that those on the mainland knew that the war had affected the islands was Churchill's speech on 9th May 1945 where he said "Today, I am pleased to announce that our Channel Islands have been set free".
Re the child abuse, a few years ago a big investigation into child abuse in a children's home here in the 70s, 80s and 90s took place and it made the news outside of here. I think the punishment for that crime can be meted out by prisoners. When a new inmate comes into the prison, the others are never told what they're in for but if it was known that they were child abusers, I would imagine that even a lot of hardened criminals would be disgusted by that and POs might turn to a blind eye on any violence that was inflicted on the abusers.
In Jersey, anyone who joins up does so into the British Forces. I wonder if Senator Ian Gorst (our First Minister) said to David Cameron or the Defence Secretary that he wants everyone who enlisted in Jersey to be withdrawn from the front line whether he would get that.
w_y, I agree with you re the poppies - I just wish the focus wasn't always on Europe as my Grandad served in Burma so VJ Day has more significance for me than VE Day.
Today is Liberation Day in the CI. I remember once that someone from the national media said that the Germans had been welcomed here in WWII - that person has obviously never been to Jersey or if they have, didn't go to the War tunnels, seen the bunkers or gone to either of the museums here. There were no British Forces here to defend us which is why I make my comment about the political situation if the Jersey Govt tried to get those from Jersey in the Forces taken from the front line - the first that those on the mainland knew that the war had affected the islands was Churchill's speech on 9th May 1945 where he said "Today, I am pleased to announce that our Channel Islands have been set free".
Re the child abuse, a few years ago a big investigation into child abuse in a children's home here in the 70s, 80s and 90s took place and it made the news outside of here. I think the punishment for that crime can be meted out by prisoners. When a new inmate comes into the prison, the others are never told what they're in for but if it was known that they were child abusers, I would imagine that even a lot of hardened criminals would be disgusted by that and POs might turn to a blind eye on any violence that was inflicted on the abusers.
My point is barry that it is a darn shame that he has to join a War Machine to get that career - I doubt pie holds any grievance against other nationalities so is not joining the RAF to be a fighter. He wants a decent career. Why can we not apprentice him and thousands of others into the civil airline industry - or space industry to develop new technolgies etc.
Child abusers come in all shapes and sizes and where they come from seems irrelevant to me. In your example barry I remember it on the news last year and the abusers were locals weren't they? I am sure you would not really advocate torture by other prisoners would you? Fine as a joke but for goodness sake we are supposed to be civilised - I do not defend child abusers but have seen statistics to show that an awful lot of them were themselves abused - not an excuse but just an observation
Child abusers come in all shapes and sizes and where they come from seems irrelevant to me. In your example barry I remember it on the news last year and the abusers were locals weren't they? I am sure you would not really advocate torture by other prisoners would you? Fine as a joke but for goodness sake we are supposed to be civilised - I do not defend child abusers but have seen statistics to show that an awful lot of them were themselves abused - not an excuse but just an observation
Leo, he's hoping that he'll only do a few years in the RAF (whatever the minimum is once he's completed his degree) then he's hoping to go into F1. Also, he's not a case of a teenager only just deciding what to do because of the subjects he does well at school, he's wanted to do this since he was 6.
You're right about the abuse here, they were locals. I do not advocate torture in any form, but assuming the reports about how lax things are in prisons are accurate, it could feasibly happen. It's more likely to be psychological - things such as comments and being given the cold shoulder/silent treatment. I have always wondered why, if someone is abused and know how it feels, they do the same to someone else.
You're right about the abuse here, they were locals. I do not advocate torture in any form, but assuming the reports about how lax things are in prisons are accurate, it could feasibly happen. It's more likely to be psychological - things such as comments and being given the cold shoulder/silent treatment. I have always wondered why, if someone is abused and know how it feels, they do the same to someone else.
I'd take you to task over that statement. Can you actually point me in the direction of a Party Manifesto that specifically stipulates that Party's stance on capital punishment? It is never an issue at election time, and the reason that it is never an issue now is that, since 2004, the UK is no longer allowed to legislate on it. So whether or not that makes us a civilised state - arguable IMO - is irrelevant as we are stuck with it. Just as we are stuck with the increasing number of 'relevant' offences - those for which a prison sentence doesn't seem to act as a deterrent either.
If it was important to me I would ask the prospective candidates what their stance was and vote according to their answers. Nor are we "stuck with" or not allowed to legislate on issues already subject to law. Our elected MPs simply have to be persuaded that there is good reason for them to override current laws with fresh legislation. As things stand, they are not persuaded...that is not to say that could change though personally I hope not.
Barry - I am so pleased that pie is following his dream etc and knows what he wants to do (my son finishes his degree next week and has no idea where he will go) To me the shame is that it is an Armed Force that attracts young men (and some young women). If only in this country we turned our attention from war related industries and ambitions and instead created those same jobs in industries that benefit rather than hurt people. Government sponsorship of advanced aviation engineering and technology would be fantastic if pursued for scientific research and peaceful purposes. To have to go into an armed force to get this opportunity seems wrong to me.
Yes we are actually. Simply persuading our MPs that there is good reason is not enough as they cannot legislate on capital punishment, having acceded to the 13th Protocol of European Convention on Human Rights.
Unless, of course, we withdraw from the Council of Europe.
With regards to your remark Barry I feel you have wrongly blamed the rest of the UK of which Jersey is a member. In 1940, it was felt that the defence of the Channel Islands would be too great in life loss for the allied forces to defend and they held no strategic importance. So on 15th June 1940 the British Government reluctantly demilitarised the Channel Islands (Isn't that what you want the whole of the UK to do Leo) The Government then went to all of the individual Islands elected representatives and they were informed. The islands were also offered as many ships as possible to aid in the evacuations of the Islands. Alderney decided to evacuate the Island, all but a handful of the Island was evacuated, The Dame of Sark encouraged the residants of Sarke to remain, Guernsey elected to evacuate all of their children unless their parents wished them to stay. Jersey decided not to evacuate anyone. These evacuations were all carried out and the evacuees taken to the mainland, those who remained on the islands chose to. The demilitarisation was not broadcast by the Government because they wished the evacuations to go ahead without attack from the Germans on the French Mainland.
The Germans started the invasion of the Channel Islands on 28th June.
Anyway on a slightly happier note - HAPPY LIBERATION DAY
Yes we are actually. Simply persuading our MPs that there is good reason is not enough as they cannot legislate on capital punishment, having acceded to the 13th Protocol of European Convention on Human Rights.
Unless, of course, we withdraw from the Council of Europe.
But not all countries ratified the protocol (Russia being one) and in any case this protocol superceded an earlier one. As I understand it parties to the earlier agreement are not required to adopt the protocol. Nothing to stop fresh protocols being added again at some point in the future.
Lenny - Because on the BBC they were reported as Pakistani's and an Afghan. So my assumption is that this was their nationality and this is were they came from. So is it not right that after the have finished their sentence they are sent back to the country of their nationality? I would also call for this is they were Australian, American, Japanese or African. However looking at what the judge has handed out, only 2 of the animals will be deported after getting out of jail - so the others must have some kind of joint nationality or ILR.
What is wrong or racist with ridding this country of such filth if they have no right to remain here?
I believe there is another of these cases due to start soon - will the BBC and others start to see that this is an endemic problem with certain areas of our communities or continue to ignore it and not been seen as racist.
What is wrong or racist with ridding this country of such filth if they have no right to remain here?
I believe there is another of these cases due to start soon - will the BBC and others start to see that this is an endemic problem with certain areas of our communities or continue to ignore it and not been seen as racist.
wear yellow said:
The distinction is important in my opinion.
The rights you get from indefinite leave to remain are based on the principle of having "lived here legally". In my opinion if you commit a crime that gets you a prison sentence, you have forfeitted those rights and should be deported to a country you are a citizen of.
On the other hand, all citizens who have committed heinous crimes should be treated equally: a British-born British citizen who commits a sex offence should be treated no differently to a foreign-born British citizen who commits a sex offence. The solution is to not give out citizenship lightly.