All four were predetermined cold blooded murder i.e. they intended/planned to kill the victim. They were not under threat from the victims nor was it "self defence"

If you were a working (or not working in a lot of cases) adult with a young family and elderly relatives you would understand how some feel about the heartless bitch.

and? then hate her. but, and this is the thing, don't spout off about all the terrible, terrible things she and her party did while at the same time giving the ultimate backing for a party by voting for them when they did the same things. it makes you look a bit of a dick.

But there was still the potential for a miscarriage of justice in their cases. It's not too long ago that a woman was convicted of killing, both on separate occasions, her two children. That's the very definition of cold blooded - kills one child and feels so little remorse that she later kills another.

Anyway, it turns out she didn't kill either child and her conviction was overturned a few years later. What would have happened to her under your plans? Dug up and reanimated?

I didn't vote for Cameron

i'm sure you didn't. i mean people who bang on about the tories screwing the poor then vote labour after they abolished the 10p tax rate which screwed the poor. people like that are oafs.

Didn't labour bring it in in the first place and at the time the ordinary rate was 22p (reduced to 20p). I am sure that even after the 10p rate went, the overall tax paid was less than before. I am fortunate not to have to claim any tax credits or benefits, but have friends and relatives who have and they all say that life under Labour was better than before 1997 and certainly better than under Cameron, where low paid workers are taking a hammering.

As a 55 year old I remember my grandparents being hospitalised (and dying) during the 80's and to be honest the state of the hospitals was a bloody disgrace, with leaking buildings and poor heating due to lack of investment (similar to schools at the time), but whether you liked Labour under Blair or not, they did invest heavily in new schools and hospitals (a friend died from cancer a couple of years ago and he was treated in the new cancer wing at Castle Hill Hospital near Hull and it was like being in a private hospital) which has to be a good thing. I don't mind paying more tax to see better education and health services, I am not that desperate for a few more quid in my wages (unlike the multi millionaire mates of Cameron).

Labour did a lot wrong during their time in office, but the low paid, sick and elderly will be battered a lot more under Cameron than they would under any other colour of government.

As for voting, I rarely have anyone stand in my area that I am happy with, in fact you could stick a blue rosette on a corpse in this area and it would get voted in.

You've avoided the question, again.

Oh and FYI I haven't voted Labour in a long time, shame it doesn't fit in with your idiotic argument.

We have seen plenty of cases where people were convicted of appalling crimes – and then, many years later, it was proved that they were innocent. But originally, on their convictions, there were no doubts, were there?



Which does not address the point I made about the ethics.



I don't think it's okay to "murder innocent people in places like Afghanistan". Do you?

Do you also believe that two wrongs make a right?

my age is irrelevant. but like i said, old enough to remember it. or is there an optimum age when you can only have an opinion?

how is it idiotic? perhaps you can explain to me how whining like a stuck pig about the actions of 1 government while voting for another who not only did the same thing, but did it first, isn't the action of an idiot.