legalbeagle

I know this is a terrible suggestion, and it's also expensive, but by god it works. Please don't judge me, I just couldn't take the screaming any more! Portable DVD player. Total happiness and silence. There. I've said it.

bignumber5 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > legalbeagle Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Tupply Glossup's version in Jeeves and Wooster? > > Sonny Boy - different song... Yes that occurred to me half way through rehearsal - sorry. It was indeed Sonny Boy and so not at all relevant to this thread. Sorry. I'll get my coat.

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sounds intriguing, legalbeagle, can you find a > link? > > Emotionally, I'm leaning towards Josef Locke cos > my grandpappy was in the Palestinian Police Force > too. But, still think ol' Bing has it at the mo. > > PS, don't buy a disgusting concotion called > Scotsmac costing ?3 from Netto. A blend of British > wine and whisky. Yuk, yuk, yuk. But it is 15% > proof so this thread might get interesting! I'm off to popchoir but when I'm back I'll see what I can find!

Tupply Glossup's version in Jeeves and Wooster?

And there you have it. Victoria Wood and Dog turds making the pitfalls of a purely utilitarian society more than clear. I rest my case.

Ted Max Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, I know what you mean. I'm asking, "Is it > enough, is it sufficient, do we need more than > this as a personal ethic?" But as piglet said, "What will you answer yourself?" After all how we wish to be treated is surely only a product of our nature and nurture combined. An accident of genetics and geography, if you will. In which case, you may consider it the height of good fortune to be beaten on the bottom with a woman's weekly (a supposition for the sake of argument, you understand), but would I? I fear that "do as you would be done by" is an inadequate guide, lead by personal preference, and fraught with danger as a result.

Not everything is a personal challenge, Atila. > Just pursuing a line of philospohical enquiry. > > Let me put it another way: what if "how you would > be done by" doesn't accord with how the other > person would wish to be "done to"? > > Is "do as you would be done by" enough of a > philosophy in ethics, and does it necessarily lead > to the greater common good (to stick with the > utilitarian approach)? And it's a perfectly valid question Ted Max. What does one do about the tyranny of the majority? We may think this is a theorectical issue, but see Daizie's post above. Clearly the majority considered the poo acceptable, nay inevitable, but should it have been allowed to exist nonetheless? Surely there are moral absolutes, requiring us to conclude that poo, in any public form, is unacceptable? Or would "do as you would be done by" have won the day and opened the floodgates to unlimited turds in that particular waiting room?

Ahhhhhhh. That's just so nice! My heros are my children. They make me want to be a better person.

I might steal it anyway. I might die soon if I don't eat. I might be so terrified of the person who ordered me to steal it that I steal it regardless of consequence. I might think that it is impossible to catch me and prove I stole it. I might have an unexplained compulsion to eat only apples because of a medical condition. It simply is not self evident that capital punishment deters crime.

"it would have deterred more ppl than if it had been a prison sentence". Based on what evidence? See many above posts as to why this is, at best, a highly dubious claim!

Mick Mac - we probably agree. I don't believe in invading in order to change the laws of a regime except in the most extreme of circumstances. I'd far rather they made a change through their own choice. To be fair to the OP, I don't think she said she felt sorry for the perpetrator in this case. She said she felt uncomfortable but she didn't know why.

Mick Mac - I think where your logic falls down for me is when the death penalty is imposed for, let's say, being homosexual. Or for theft. Or for being Jewish. Or for being a political opponent. It's a perfectly legal punishment under the regime in question, but I think we have a right, indeed a duty, to say those things are wrong, irrespective of the country or regime in question. It isn't a question of superiority, it is a question of human rights, which should not change just because of an arbitrarily drawn border.

No doubt someone will interpret me as not caring about the victim's right to life, and that couldn't be further from the truth, though as you say it isn't relevant to my point. It's interesting to see how public opinion shifts on these matters, once the reality of living with them comes to pass. "Let's bomb the terrorists" quickly turns into "what the hell are our soldiers doing out in a desert miles from home" when the death toll of british soldiers starts to rise. The same thing applies here - we knew the Guildford 4, the Birmingham 6 and Colin Stagg were all guilty as hell and should swing, till it turned out they just weren't.... And on a seperate note completely, a good friend of mine, a very skilled advocate, was appalled when he was sent to the US to study the training some of their prosecutors receive to extract confessions. Turns out it is perfectly possible without laying a finger on someone or raising a voice to them, that you can get them to confess to something they simply did not do.

Oh Lonesome me - Johnny Cash

I think to be a society in which I would happily live there would have to be some rights that a human being cannot lose, regardless of what they have done, and a right to life would be one of them. A right to freedom from cruel, unusual or degrading punishment would be another. It is certainly a difficult line to draw. Is a sentence of life meaning life cruel, since it is usual to allow a consideration of parole? A refusal to allow someone out of prison to die? The line has to be drawn, but where to draw it is a very difficult debate. We have seen this recently in the distinction some have tried to make between waterboarding and torture. For me the line comes before torture or death are inflicted, but further away than "life" meaning "ten years". But exactly where, I must confess I don't know.

HAL9000 - I think it's common for defence lawyers and human rights organisations to raise a mental health question if they possibly can, and I suppose it is right that they should do so if they are going to do their job properly. Who knows in this case whether it really applies - though I question how you could possibly do this to children and be "normal". Mick Mac - to be fair to OP I think they said that they couldn't identify what it was that made them feel uncomfortable, and I don't read any sympathy for the perpetrator in that post.

Mick Mac - just for the record, absent any mental illness, I have no sympathy for this guy either. Nor do I have any illusions about how horrific his crimes were, nor how appalling it would be to live with the knowledge of that happening to my child. But I still think that the death penalty is wrong, ineffective as a deterrent, expensive and an act of legalised barbarism and revenge that debases society as a whole. Life should mean life. That's the sensible alternative - it has all of the benefits of capital punishment and none of the negatives.

I think it's just an accepted fact that children bring pestilence into your home for the first five years of their life. I recovered from a cold last week. I now have a horrible ear infection. Next week I'll probably have chicken pox. Sigh.

Keef - there's a woman on Northcross Road market who sells shea butter. It's a small stall and she doesn't sell anything else. It seems quite expensive (I think about ?5 for a small pack) but you only need to rub on a tiny bit at a time. We tried Oilatum, diprobase and lots of other things on both my children with no effects at all. This worked within a matter of a week if not less. I'm not promising a miracle cure, every child is different, but it certainly worked a treat on both of mine. Worth a go for a fiver, plus it is a completely pure and natural product so no harm can be done by trying?

Which has just happened in the US I believe. The answer is they apologise profusely and compensate the family.

Thanks Chick, that's really kind. I have to get confirmation from my allotment site first and then work out what to do next but if I do go ahead with the plan I'll be in touch!

Iain - I'm not sure that Saudi Arabia are that forthcoming with statistical analysis of their criminal justice system so it would be difficult to debate that particular regime with full knowledge of the facts. However it is possible to review places like the the US and demonstrate that capital punishment does not provide a deterrent. It is also possible to demonstrate in other places, like parts of the Carribean. I don't have any of the studies to hand now but read quite a lot when I was practising and studying law. It has been widely accepted by the legal profession and some governments (of the western world) for a while that capital punishment doesnt work as a deterrent. It would be interesting to see a true analysis of places like Saudi or China but I've never read one - perhaps another forumite will have done or will have more up to date information than I do?

But the point many are making - and they are right - it that it isn't an effective deterrent.

I hope so Iain! In the meantime I gather there is a bee keeping association in Sydenhman, though I don't know much about them. I know waiting for an allotment is a pain, but don't forget you can grow all sorts of things in tubs (I grew fantastic tomatos and courgettes in tubs one year) or back gardens or even just in window boxes (try salad leaves at this time of year in a window box, they do really well). Give it a try!

Not sure I can answer the question, but isn't macRoban a "he" rather than a "she"?