Unless WW means she's evil because she's BAME and not left wing
Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- 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
-
Unless WW means she's evil because she's BAME and not left wing
Too busy keeping you safe and free to spout your left wing nonsense, bless ‘in.
He’s a ****.
Because he has a different opinion to yours? I’m one too then. I don’t think you are, though.
Let’s make love.
As much as I’d like self-described Thatcherites to be locked up I was referring more to her views on immigration, same sex marriage, capital punishment and her rather murky secret dealings with Israel that suggest she might not be an ideal Home Secretary but definitely suggest she’s a horrible ****.
Channel that hate into something positive, Sloughie. Maybe crochet or card making? Reckon you’ve got talent.
She's done good work on cutting down illegal immigration across The Channel with her French counterpart, which is why the current route chosen by evil traffickers is Belgium (and hence 39 dead). Same sex marriage can be a matter of conscience and religion - you may like to condemn all Muslims, and for that matter Jewish people, who are against it. Patel is not looking to bring back the death penalty but wants tougher sentences for persistent violent offenders. She's openly pro-Israel, but she got sacked by May for being off message rather than anything murky.
For the record, I’d like to bring back the death penalty, but only after due process in a court of law. I don’t advocate stringing Prime Ministers up in the street like certain left wing authors do that are fawned over by the Beeb with £40m adaptations of their anti-Christian propaganda.
I’d happily condemn anyone who is against it.
Secret meetings then lying to the PM about it when questioned sounds a bit murky.
I'd bring back the death penalty for certain limited premeditated murders. Examples - Dale Cregan who ambushed and shot two young policewomen. Roy Whiting who murdered Sarah Payne. The only doubt in my mind is level of burden of proof. You would need more than beyond reasonable doubt, if that is possible. It would have to be case certain
Last edited:
She didn't lie to the PM but I agree she was economical with the truth. She should have come up front from the first time May raised the matter.
Nobody wants to see an innocent person executed, I agree.
I believe in the deterrent effect of the death penalty, where others don’t, which in itself will lead to lives saved. I also believe that we have a de facto death penalty already, but one without due process - we shoot dead people carrying table legs and Brazilian backpackers in tube stations. We also bomb foreign countries causing collateral damage. So the State already kills people in our name.
I find it odd how passionately some people oppose the death penalty yet aren’t much animated by some of the things done elsewhere.
You're right, Ubes. Jihadi John was executed by state - a matter for relief because he couldn't kill more innocents. Two other "Beatles" may be executed in the US, and no one will complain. We are hypocritical about this.
There's no doubt there's a deterrent effect of the death penalty. Premeditated killers have been known to ask the police on arrest to give an estimate of what they'll get. And of course, there are a significant number of murderers who go on to kill again. Innocent lives lost, often women, that would not have been when we had a death penalty
I don't think the CPS would. A good defence lawyer would pick this up and there would be a national outcry. We have seen suppression of evidence in the past, though.(edit - in fact, this was the police, not the lawyers). And you do get rogue police occasionally. Which is why, so far as the death penalty is concerned, there would have to be a very high burden of proof, multiple witnesses, indisputable DNA etc.
Last edited:
You would also need to employ somebody to carry out this work - an official state executioner. Would you do this job ? If not then don't ask anyone else to do it. You are also asking that people work on a jury and pronounce a guilty verdict knowing what the result will be. Evidence from the USA has shown that juries are slightly less likely to reach a guilty verdict if the death penalty is a possibility. This leads to a situation where more guilty people actually go free. The question of whether it is an effective deterrent - it would be for you and me, but then we are not murderers or terrorists. There is no logic in thinking that it would be a deterrent for a suicide killer. In cases where the death penalty is possible it may even make arrests more difficult, and would, inevitably, lead to having an armed police force.
Just to put it out there......isn’t Jo Bird Jewish herself ? I was on the understanding that she made a light hearted comment using the words ‘Jew process’ (herself being Jewish), was suspended (quite bizarrely) for 10 days and then cleared.....
I guess that doesn’t fit the Labour ‘anti Semite’ narrative though......
Yes, I’d do it, Odie.
Why would it ‘inevitably’ lead to having an armed police force? 1, we already sadly do, and 2, when we last had capital punishment we didn’t much.
As for juries, I believe most members on a trial for (say) a child rapist murderer, party to harrowing evidence and (let’s say) irrefutable guilt, wouldn’t hesitate to give a guilty verdict. It’s then up to the judge to pass sentence.
Of course, thanks to the growing liberal mentality there’s also the belief that perps are either insane, or at the mercy of their genetic disposition, or victims themselves of an oppressive Tory regime.
In answer to your first question - a person who knows that a death penalty is waiting for them is going to use all the powers at their disposal to resist arrest, knowing that additional murders can no longer have any further consequences. This is why it would lead to a fully armed police force. You say that 'you would do it' - so you say that you would be prepared to be a professional executioner ie. to kill those who your government has decided deserve to die (not those who you personally want to kill) - it would just be your job, and somebody else would decide the victims, not you yourself.