mockney piers

Wow Ive never seen moral and absolutes and poo in the same sentence before!!! Aaaagh, it's happened again!

I think they still do the odd tour and stuff. Yep she is rather lovely.

Annaj, you're clearly forgetting about the lovely Pris in Bladerunner (and thanks for the spelling correction btw). Actually no idea whether or not she could get up the duff, I guess she'd have been designed sterile. Number six cylon claimed she could however. *dons anorak* But totally with you HAL, had the same reaction regards news. And indeed it's long been a theme explored in science fiction to which your very name stands testament.

Seems an eminently sensible prophalactic against a possble terminator/cylon scenario. If we're nice to them they won't try to destroy us.

Santerme, Paying it Forward was a pretty dreadful film, but not sure if there's anything underlying the concept that's so very wrong. My moral compass was formed watching the adventure game, and consequently involves my reacting to good fortune by the need to sacrifice shiny coloured plastic to the nearest aspadistra. However I understand there's a Cantian reformation that believes the aspadistra a false idol and the true revelation from moira Stuart was revealed only to Brian Cant. I'm now leaning toward the latter and will look through the round window for guidance.

Happy birthday indeed. Is it me or does this thread just go round in circles? I can't quite put my finger on it but have an uneasy sense of d?j? vu. Weird.

Actually reading my post I'm not even sure what I'm stating, leave alone that it's obvious. I think I was trying to underline the point about deterrence, which it seems is not so obvious as there's a whole underlying circular argument that never resolves. So fair point, anything that needs to have been said, particularly on the narrow point you mention, has been said. Fair enough.

Sadly it is the very emotive reaction to his crimes that clouds sensible debate about the death penalty of you ask me. A quick note on deterrence, in the 1780's over two hundred crimes were punishable by death, from rape and murder through to stealing morethan a shilling, illegally cutting down a tree in an orchard and breaking the border of a fish pond. In 1789 Thomas Morgan and James smith , 14 & 12!!!!!respectively were executed for stealing silk handkerchiefs. In that period 624 people wee executed attyburn alone, yet a crime wave continued. Two homosexuals were put in pilloried and very nearly stoned to death from the mob that formed to abuse them. tls like anecdotali grant you but it was precisely this period that led to the end of the death penalty for all but the highest crimes (hence revenge rather than deterrence) and forgive me if the baying righteous (he raped a child/they were sodomisers) should never be they types to make policy.

Well said legal, that's very true. People seem happy enough that it's a paedolphile, but rarely are lines anything but grey. Indeed HALs pretty dismissive of the mental issue. Leaving aside Saudi's dubious reputation when it comes to scrutiny of it's policing and judiciary, I'd say anyone who did what they did then laughed when interrogated is almost certainly barking.needs to be remved from society, but executed? As I say whre do you draw this line, a mental affliction merits death, a mental handicap too, a physical one (if that is t be implication Godwinning this debate)?

I don't think it's anything to do with feeling superior. I guess civilisation itself is a subjective term, but is a society that owns slaves less civilised? I'd say so, is one that endorses state murder, again I'd say yes, is one that tries to take care of it's citizens more civilised than one that leaves them to fend for themselves and indeed mete out the death penalty for petty theft (as we did a mere 250 years ago - and no it wasn't much of a deterrent was it), again I'd say yes. But perhaps I'm beggng the question being, as I am, a amember of a liberal western society. No I don't think we have a right to tell other nations how to govern themselves, but I stand by anybody's right to protest for human rights. But whether I feel superior to a Saudi or an ancient Roman is utterly irrelevant. If you ask your average Saudi whether we have a right to intefere they'll happily tell us to bog off, many, like here, would doubtless aprove of this execution, but I'd be very surprised if anyone said that public execution is the result of a civilising influence. And matthew, I simply ask you, would you prefer life in prison or death. People will often go to extraordinary lengths to claw just one more minute of life. I'd be careful before you start pontificating about how he's better off.

Plus I don't think keef was muddying the debate by bringing in torture or other means of execution into it. For many it is about revenge, and the more the suffering the better, though many family memebrs who witness an execution in the states feel little sense of closure or satisfaction at seeng it done. If they were to use the Shah's favoured method of disposing of political enemies, the sainsburys meat slicer from the feet up, would that elicit some human sympathy at the suffering? It's valid to ask if it's a matter of degrees before the levels of suffering are too great for the merited degree of punishment, or does the paedophile/murderer/highwayman/drink driver cede all rights to humanity?

Gosh good point BB, language and evolution are incompatible, right off to the baptismal font with me. But seriously language isn't all that amazing, a baby's various cries are language. There are greater wonders in nature like photosynthesis or termites building perfectly climate controlled environments while being dumb and blind. Not convinced language is going to be an argument winner.

Merry Christmas Everybody obviously. I liked rocky road when I was a little'un. Is that christmassy or is my memory bad? Haven't really done christianity for about thirty years.

It's a pretty good measure of the Labour Party that the best man for the job did get it!!!

I like to think there's a seventies era Pamela Stevenson as the earthy barmaid at the Not The Vale.

Took the words out of my mouth monkeyboy. Yelp is a pretty good resource for finding stuff. Www.yelp.co.uk

I though this was the sibling thread to wilmer dearing, bit that was Gil Gerard wasn't it.

Aaah, a mighty fine show. The height of camp. She was one of my first great crushes!! It's great watching the show as a grown up, just how cheap, bad and gloriously camp it was. Wilmer one of the all time greats. And Buck's paunch was a great touch too. Somehow I don't think it's as ripe for a serious rediscovery in the waythat battlestar galactic somehow achieved, it would be rather missing the point. Still, aren't the cylons fit now!!

Oh I quite agree but we don't seem to be doing anything at all about turning them int opportnities, and I don't believe we've worked those kinks out of the economy at all, I think everyones waiting for things to get back to normal beofrehand funding their spending based upon their new found confidence in the future thanks to hosuing Market and the debt they'll secure off it. I agree that some of the insanity of the credt and housing booms has been ditched however. Plus there are many more subtleties wham measuring poverty. If we deny a family is in poverty, but the parent(s) are holding down 3 minimum wage jobs as they no longer qualify for some allowance and then we demonised their children for being out of control and go on about how encouraging marriage or some other simplistic nonsense will fix this broken society when actaully it's being tough on benefit cheats blah blah that's got so many families genuinely on he poverty line into this mess. Give with one hand and take with the other wih a big dash of moralising. I may sound like I'm having a pop at what's to co e but his lot have done very little. I'd be well up for some genuine socialism, labour really ae neither here nor there.

I'll have a tidy up when I get home, I promise. I might even put a bit of discipline into my thinking post-hoc.

Many ways to measure things and a few simple economic indicators, paetcular growth as a reflection thathe poor are gettng richer seem to be either naive or arrogant. If we think a return to growth via a retrn to cheap credit and house price increases os sensible then fair enough. Meantime I see jobs in my sector going elsewhere just like our industry beofrehand. What's left, the finance isndustry and call centres, is that it? Then we have yet to feel the full effects of peak oil and the fact that prices are going to rse across the board, especially for energy and food, no to mention that effects tha global warming will have on the cost of food production and imports. It's never a simple as saying the economy will not grow again, but it's head in thE sand time if you think a simple upward trend of economic growth is the be all and end all.

And as a newcomer I must ask you to forgive my English. I'm not an imbecile I just have a very small keyboard. It can make exressing ones thoughts and spelling the correctly very difficult.

Sorry if my points wernt explicit enough. I'm not suggesting politics needs to be exciting but that there needs to be more engagement and some mechanism wherby we actually have a say on issues rather than being robbed off with some bollocks about there needing to bs. Adebate and then getting one paltry vote every five years by which we're supposed to be able to say what we think about an enourmous broad range of issues. Think legions of voters in the US going republcsn because they think (mistakenly) that they're voting for 'pro-life' and electing pro-business who care not one jot for their economic interets and troubles. It's ridiculous and not really democracy. I've often voted green bit what's the point, they'll never get so much as a minor say about anything. As for the modern history lesson, plenty of evidence that not only is the gap widening, but the poor are indeed getting poorer as are the middle classes and the next generation can reasonably expectgto be the first one in the post war world to be worse off.

But people aren't going to vote for the Tories because they believe charity will cure poverty, and mark my words the poor WILL get even poorer underthe next government (Ive kind of resigned myself to it), just as nobody voted in the last election in support of Iraq and Afghanistan (though a certain notable Islamist chose to interpret it that way and to a certain extent who could blame him). I do think the electorate are divorced from anything approaching real democracy, every five years we get to vote on a lollipop flavour basically. Mmmmm this five years I think strawberry. Curretly the choice is between centrist managerialism wih a vague notion of less government and less regulation versus centrist managerialism with a vague notion towards overregulation (except in financial markets), overreliance on legislation and some waters down keynsianism. And once again I ask is it any wonder noone engages with politics?

I thought it a refreshing chNge that Obama took no contributions from lobby groups. That's not to say he didn't take campaign contributions from interested parties (I think collectively the banks were far and awaythe biggest contributors to his coffers, but then also to Clinton and mcclain, I guess they know all about hedging). Personally I think there should be even tighter regulation on political contributions and lobby groups should be banned. Anyone else disturbed by announcements of go ahead for huge nuclear building programme with edf, who's head of sales to the uk gov't is a certain brother of the prime minister, while on topic of dubious interests?