legalbeagle

Lots of different views, which is fair enough. But for the record, it has been shown time and again that capital punishment does not work as a deterrent. The US is a very good example. Plenty of states execute people, as Virginia did this week, but they have one of the highest murder rates in the world.

Thanks Ian - I have had a couple of PMs too, it's really nice that there's some enthusiasm! I'll ask allotment committee first and if I can get some Bees I'll take it from there. Meantime allotments are hard to come by I think. Ours has a waiting list of almost two years, which is how long it took me to get mine. I think it's just a case of getting your name on waiting lists and keeping your fingers crossed.

Hello - I have an allotment nearby, and was thinking about asking the allotment committee whether I can keep bees there. I am a complete novice and would have to go on a course first etc, but one thing I do know is that I won't have the time to look after them on my own, not least because someone would have to check them if I'm on holiday etc. Anyone interested in sharing a hive? Or being a bee buddy in exchange for free honey? If so I might try and get this plan off the ground!

(Hello again vinceayre!) I have some sympathy with that point - there are more sophisticated ways of starting the racism debate and to many people (myself included) it's offensive to even read/hear that word. I was just trying to explain the OP's MO, in case anyone thought he was just being provocative for the sake of it.

Vinceayre - It is incredibly difficult to find any human sympathy for someone who does that to a child and I can't even begin to imagine how I would feel were that my three year old. I don't agree with the death penalty not because I have sympathy for the prisoner (though reports of mental illness in this case make it harder to judge that point) but because I'm concerned about what it does to society as a whole when the state acts in a manner just as barbaric as the criminal. There's no question that the fate of that child was heartbreaking.

Localgirl - I am sure that the OP can speak for himself, but I think the title of this thread was an invitation to a wider debate - as OP says: "time to take stock about what is and what isn't racist". He tends to go for headline grabbing thread titles, but his contribution to substantive debate has been interesting in the past, so don't judge too harshly!

Similar thing happened to me when I lived in Battersea - neighbours kids using our "for sale" sign as target practice with their air rifle, missed, and pellet came through bathroom window while I was brushing my teeth! Of course they never meant to hurt me and weren't aiming at the house but it was not a happy moment. Plus it turns out that bullet holes in a for sale sign can put off the odd buyer or two!

HAL9000 - that's a really interesting post, and I agree with what you are saying. I don't consider a whole nation of people to be barbaric just because their government takes certain actions, and it would be ignorant for anyone to do so. I just have an abhorrence of the death penalty wherever and however it takes place - today's news of the execution of the Washington sniper makes me equally sad. But then again I have had the odd experience of corresponding with men who were convinced they were going to be hanged and I suppose that gives me a different view from a person whose loved ones have been raped or murdered. Nationality, type of government, religious persuasion or lack of make no difference to me in this debate.

Matthew - what I meant was that none of the studies I have read show capital punishment working as a deterrent for violent crime. At all. What message will it send if this perpetrator is not killed in this horrific way? Maybe it will send the message that the state recognises the severity of the crime but does not stoop to its barbaric levels by way of punishment? Because they are above such inhumanity? Which is what distinguishes them from the criminal? A good message in my view.

If public beheading and posthumous mutilation were a deterrent the crime wouldn't have been committed in the first place. Pick a study on the subject. They pretty much all show no link between murder rates and the use of (any kind of) capital punishment. Murder and serious crime rates in the US China and Jamaica - to name a few - are higher than average and they all have capital punishment.

I am absolutely not a fan of Gordon Brown, but if anyone understands the pain of losing a child, then he does. I just can't believe he wrote that letter with anything other than sadness and sympathy and in a effort to console.

JoJo09 - I think it is a good thing that you feel uncomfortable. I do too, in fact I think it is appalling. I feel uncomfortable because a nation state is treating a citizen is a base, inhumane and disgusting way. The lesson a population takes from that is that it is ok to treat someone in that way, in certain circumstances. And I don't think it is ever ok. It is a punishment designed to cause pain and horror and to terrify and humiliate. Watching any human being suffer in that way brings out feelings of empathy and sorrow, simply because, whatever they have done, they are human. The fact that it is sactioned by a nation state makes it worse. Something so barbaric is enshrined in law and gives out the message that this is - officially - ok. We are allowed to do this. No matter how it makes you feel, it is legal and therefore right that it should be done. If this were done to a person in the course of a crime we would be horrified. But because it is done by the state, it is ok. What are you teaching the population? That two wrongs make a right. An eye for an eye. Vengeance is not just acceptable but demanded. The people you put in charge of your country have no limits on what they can do to an individual. I can't think of anything scarier than that. Maybe that's why you feel bad?

You're right, it's a valid philosophical question as well as legal one. My perspective is that how we treat criminals should not about who they are, but about who we are. Do we want to be the state that flogs and tortures and kills its citizens or do we want to attempt to punish in a humane but serious way. I would prefer to belong to the latter society, because I think that state sanctioned corporal or capital punishment leads easily to other abuses that aren't enshrined in law but are generally accepted behaviour (torture by police force being a very typical example). I also think it sets the bar of how we all want to live and be treated too low, and desensitises us to death and pain. I'd rather the State led by example and treated its citizens humanely, even though we may struggle to find appropriate punishments and controls. But of course lots of people disagree - so many in fact that if we had a referendum there would be an overwhelming public vote in favour of capital punishment.

I know I'm probably far too late but it sounds like you both like gardens? If so have you thought about a years membership of the RHS? The RHS gardens at Wisley are not that far away and are beautiful, and very interesting, and if one person is an RHS member they can take someone else in for free, so it would benefit you both. It's only about ?40, maybe a bit less.

I see I got quoted too! And yes I do think we can all get along despite our differences! I'm well chuffed.

I think we are always going to disagree Silverfox, which is fine, we are all entitled to an opinion. But clarifications are below in capitals (not because I'm shouting at you but just so you can see it amoungst the other type!) silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- legalbeagle, I don't understand your post. LB said: "Capital punishment also ignores the point that there are two parties involved - the punisher and the prisoner..." No mention of victim here. NO - I DON'T BELIEVE VICTIMS SHOULD HAVE A SAY IN SENTENCING BEYOND THE IMPACT STATEMENTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ALLOWED. IF ANYONE HURT MY CHILDREN I WOULD HUNT THEM DOWN AND KILL THEM IN THE MOST PAINFUL WAY I COULD MANAGE. WHICH WOULD BE TOTALLY WRONG, SOMETHING FOR WHICH I SHOULD BE PUNISHED, AND THE REASON I DON'T BELIEVE VICTIMS SHOULD HAVE A SAY IN PUNISHMENT. LB said: "...We shouldn't inflict that sort of punishment on people because we don't want to say that the state considers it to be an acceptable way to treat its citizens however badly they have behaved...." As I understand citizenship, a citizen is granted certain rights from a state in return for certain responsibilities (a social contract). Wicked villains therefore forfeit this status. I DON'T AGREE. THE STATE SHOULD GRANT SOME BASIC RIGHTS THAT STAY WITH YOU REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU DO AND BEING PROTECTED FROM THE STATE KILLING OR TORTURING YOU IS ONE OF THEM. LB said: "...study after study has shown that Capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent and costs more than a life sentence..." Not sure what you mean here. If we assume a life sentence in England/Wales is around 15-20 years then if I pay a hangman ?10,000 to hang a murderer simple sums tell me the state has made a saving rather than keeping someone in prison for that time. If you're quoting American studies, where life may mean 35 years plus (and countless legal appeals) then the studies you refer to would seem even more ridiculous. Surely 50,000 volts costs less than bed and board for 35 years. That aside, the post is about birching not killing people. IN ORDER TO HAVE AN ACCEPTABLY FAIR AND THOROUGH LEGAL SYSTEM YOU HAVE TO ALLOW FOR APPEALS. I HAVE DEFENDED PRISONERS ON DEATH ROW IN JAMAICA AND EVEN THERE, WHERE THE LEGAL SYSTEM IS FAR FROM PERFECT, IN CASES OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT THESE APPEALS CAN TAKE LITERALLY DECADES. THE SITUATION IS THE SAME IN THE US WHERE THE LEGAL COSTS OF LENGTHY APPEALS PLUS COSTS TO HOUSE PRISONERS ON DEATH ROW DURING THAT TIME, FAR OUTWEIGH THE COST OF YOUR AVERAGE LIFE SENTENCE FOR MURDER. (THOUGH AS YOU SAY THIS IS NOT RELEVANT TO YOUR OP.) LB said: "...Plus I just don't get the logic. You are going to thrash someone who has thrashed someone to prove that thrashing someone is wrong?..." You do have a point here LB, it is illogical - except that wicked villians don't play by these nice rules of what makes sense, is logical, rational. Rather, from a birching point of view, it's more if you look at me like that you're dissing me and I'll stab you. BUT TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT. WE, AS A NATION STATE, ARE ABOVE THAT KIND OF INHUMANE BEHAVIOUR. WHAT DISTINGUISHES US FROM THE VILLAIN IS EXACTLY AND ONLY THAT. IF WE STOOP TO THEIR LEVEL WE DEBASE THE WHOLE OF OUR SOCIETY. Keef's concerns about a society that tortures people are concerns we should all share. However, is a humiliating thrashing on the backside as a deterrent any worse than keeping prisoners in Victorian-standard cells, using potties for toilets, slopping out, braving the showers, accepting the dominance of the daddy on the wing? Perhaps someone should start a new thread on what exactly torture is. THIS IS TORTURE IN MY VIEW - JUST MY VIEW BUT THERE IT IS.

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A society that tortures people who misbehave (and > it is torture IMO) is not a society that I could > be proud of, or would want any part of. Couldn't agree with this more. Capital punishment also ignores the point that there are two parties involved - the punisher and the prisoner. It's not just about who they are, it's about who we are too. We shouldn't inflict that sort of punishment on people because we don't want to say that the state considers it to be an acceptable way to treat its citizens however badly they have behaved. Incidentally study after study has shown that capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent and costs more than a life sentence. Plus I just don't get the logic. You are going to thrash someone who has thrashed someone to prove that thrashing someone is wrong?

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A society that tortures people who misbehave (and > it is torture IMO) is not a society that I could > be proud of, or would want any part of. Couldn't agree with this more. Capital punishment also ignores the point that there are two parties involved - the punisher and the prisoner. It's not just about who they are, it's about who we are too. We shouldn't inflict that sort of punishment on people because we don't want to say that the state considers it to be an acceptable way to treat its citizens however badly they have behaved. Incidentally study after study has shown that capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent and costs more than a life sentence. Plus I just don't get the logic. You are going to thrash someone who has thrashed someone to prove that thrashing someone is wrong?

Oh sorry didn't realise that - my wee one is 2 and a bit so I suppose I wouldn't have realised. Is it true of calpol night time and medised too? They're just paracetamol and piriton so would do the same thing.

A pharmacist recommended Piriton to me when one of mine was particularly snotty. It doesn't improve the cold but it does prevent the immune system from producing the snot in the first place, or at least reduces its ability to produce snot, so it should improve matters considerably. You can get piriton in a suspension that is for children from any chemist though you might have to hide it in a drink as I'm not sure it tastes that nice! I always take antihistamine when I have a cold and it works a treat!

My son sounds a lot like yours, he was a very late walker. He is coming up for two and a half and still naps every afternoon in his cot, and would for hours if I let him. Personally I intend to leave him in his cot until he either asks for a bed (which is what my daughter did) or is too big or unsafe in his cot. It seems as though you have lots of good reasons to leave him in a cot, and are only worrying because other children his age are in beds. But as you'll know, children develop at different rates (my daughter was the last of her friends to potty train by AGES!) so if he's happy and you're happy, why worry about moving him? He'll let you know when he's ready.

There is one at the Dulwich tennis club - I haven't been but one of my friends has and says it is very good and child friendly, they can see the fireworks from inside the clubhouse and avoid the noise. I think there is food and drink too. Not sure of the details but I saw it advertised in SE22 magazine which will have details I'm sure.

Domitianus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Unless, of course, you are a breast-feeding mother > in which case you are entitled to expose any part > of your anatomy in any place you please and damn > the offense to anyone else. This post is so funny it's almost worthy of Louisa! Very very good effort! (Worth pointing out though that it isn't just their entitlement, but their legally enshrined right! Ha!)

Well Pepsi it would be a huge shame if you are right - though if it's your observation then it can hardly be "wrong". Perhaps I have been fortunate enough only to meet more polite people in ED recently!

> Oh come on, what a daft response - parents being > "exhausted, stressed, worrying about the baby > sleeping, worrying about finances" etc. You don't > need academic research to tell you that these > things are hardly a 21st century malady. Some > people behave as if having children has only just > been invented! But Pepsi the point is that is hasn't happened to that person before. Cimbing mountains, falling in love, overcoming illness, adopting children, curing diseases, flying at the speed of sound, having a child - it's all been done before. Does that mean we can dismiss the novelty and difficulties that each of us find when we ourselves do them for the first time? Are we to be chastised for making a fuss about coping with grief on the basis that others have done it before us? On your logic you should just "get over" other people being rude to you - after all people have been rude for years?