rover49 wrote: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.
My grandparents died in the 70's and I wasn't all that impressed by the state of the hospitals at the time.
Post subject: Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces)
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:55 pm
Sal Paradise
International Chairman
Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 18060 Location: On the road
Rock God X wrote: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?
You cannot compare the two - there was no chance for a miscarriage in the cases I suggested, I am not sure your examples even count as murder - more likely manslaughter?
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Post subject: Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces)
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:03 pm
Sal Paradise
International Chairman
Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 18060 Location: On the road
Mintball wrote: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?
I fully understand the points you are making - execution should only be used where the crime is so hiddeous and the proof is certain - e.g Brady, Sutcliffe, West etc.
Personally I would re-introduce the death penalty because I think some crimes are so disgusting that they need treating with the ultimate sanction. On that we will obvious disagree.
As for war - there will always be - sadly - collateral damage, are you suggesting we should disband the armed forces? If not when do suggest state ordered killing - which is what war is - is OK
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Post subject: Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces)
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:19 pm
Rock God X
Player Coach
Joined: Oct 21 2006 Posts: 10852
Sal Paradise wrote:You cannot compare the two - there was no chance for a miscarriage in the cases I suggested,
What part of 'every case must be proved beyond reasonable doubt' don't you understand? Every single murder trial in this country carries exactly the same burden of proof. Anyone found guilty of murder has been shown in a court of law to be guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. And yet, sometimes we get it wrong.
Sal Paradise wrote:I am not sure your examples even count as murder - more likely manslaughter?
Eh? Come again?
A mother kills her own child, then, on a separate occasion, she kills another of her children and you don't think that would count as murder? Exactly where is this 'real world' you inhabit?
Christianity: because you're so awful you made God kill himself.
Last edited by Rock God X on Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post subject: Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces)
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:19 pm
Mintball
All Time Great
Joined: May 10 2002 Posts: 47951 Location: Die Metropole
Sal Paradise wrote:... On that we will obvious disagree.
Fair enough.
The only point I would make is that all murder is horrific (I use murder explicitly as different from manslaughter). To say that some murders are worse than others is ultimately always going to be subjective. And also creates a sort of class system of the value of life.
So, for instance, if someone believes that the murderers of children should be executed, then they're saying that a child's life is worth more than that of someone (presumably) who is murdered just an hour after whatever age the law decides they're an adult. The same sort of thing would apply if someone suggested that capital punishment should be used for killers of the elderly. At what age does a life become, in effect, more valuable?
Similarly, for those who claim that murderers of police officers should be executed: why is the life of a policeman or woman worth more than that of a non-policeman/woman? Would the same thing apply to civilian members of the police force – forensics officers, for instance?
It would always be subjective and illogical, and effectively ignores the generally horrific nature of murder.
Sal Paradise wrote:As for war - there will always be - sadly - collateral damage, are you suggesting we should disband the armed forces? If not when do suggest state ordered killing - which is what war is - is OK
I'd personally prefer to see the armed forces only used for defence.
"You are working for Satan." Kirkstaller
"Dare to know!" Immanuel Kant
"Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive" Elbert Hubbard
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." Oscar Wilde
Post subject: Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces)
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:20 pm
Rock God X
Player Coach
Joined: Oct 21 2006 Posts: 10852
Sal Paradise wrote:I fully understand the points you are making - execution should only be used where the crime is so hiddeous and the proof is certain - e.g Brady, Sutcliffe, West etc.
The proof is 'certain' in every single murder case. Every one.
Christianity: because you're so awful you made God kill himself.
Post subject: Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces)
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:31 pm
Ferocious Aardvark
International Chairman
Joined: Feb 17 2002 Posts: 28357 Location: MACS0647-JD
Cibaman wrote:... For example, would you treat Ian Huntley different to Myra Hindley? He was convicted by an 11-1 majority verdict. Would that spare him the noose?
I wouldn't want Huntley to be killed, but you have to admit it would be a service to the gene pool to exterminate juror no. 12.
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
Post subject: Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces)
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:36 pm
Kosh
Moderator
Joined: Jul 31 2003 Posts: 36786 Location: Leafy Worcester, home of the Black Pear
Sal Paradise wrote:Personally I would re-introduce the death penalty because I think some crimes are so disgusting that they need treating with the ultimate sanction.
To what purpose, exactly?
Hold on to me baby, his bony hands will do you no harm It said in the cards, we lost our souls to the Nameless One
Post subject: Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces)
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:49 pm
Rock God X
Player Coach
Joined: Oct 21 2006 Posts: 10852
Kosh wrote:This is something that proponents of the death penalty are simply incapable of comprehending.
Baffling, isn't it? Whatever your view on the ethics of the death penalty in principle, that fact that if it were to be reintroduced, it would only be a matter of time before an innocent person was put to death by the state should be enough to see that it is never brought back as a sentencing option.
Christianity: because you're so awful you made God kill himself.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 128 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
