legalbeagle

jimmy two times Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Where do we draw the line? Is there a need to draw > a line between an annoying celebrity and a > paedophile? Surely any fool can differentiate? Yes JTT they can, and I was exaggerating to make the point. You hate drug dealers. Others hate rapists. Others think armed robbery in your own home in the middle of the night when your wife and kids are asleep is as terrifying as it can get. You seem to be arguing that some of these things deserve torture as a response, and by extension some don't. I have no doubt that some people would happily torture Nick Griffin simply for the political views he holds. The point is that someone has to draw the line between crimes that are awful and crimes that are so serious that torture to gain confession is a valid tool. Who are they and how do they do it?

jimmy two times Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would not compare Paris Hilton, or even Nick > Griffin, to a drug dealer or a paedo. And that's the point. Where do we draw the line?

Girls just wanna have fun - Cindy Lauper

jimmy two times Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why has this place gone to the dogs Sean? Because > some of us have views that are not as liberal as > yours ? Well I'll admit, I hate drug dealers. I > also hate Paedos. And I hate people who commit > random acts of violence for absolutely no reason > at all. And quite frankly I would not lose a wink > of sleep to know that these people were getting > all that's coming to them. Call it karma. I hate Nick Griffin, Paris Hilton and people who split their infinitives. Shall we kill them too? Or just lop off a limb?

matthew123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well if water torture isn't acceptable for certain > elements of the crime world then what is the > answer - because just saying something is wrong is > just passing the buck. Horses for courses I say. Who gets to choose which elements of the criminal world deserve torture and when and in what form? Who agrees to become a state trained torturer? Do you really want to live in a country where there is public debate about whether child sex offences are more serious than adult sex offences, and if so, whether punishment by genital mulitation would be an acceptable form of torture to elicit confession? Are you able to sit through a torture session and feel just as humane and dignified as you do at the moment? Do you trust our police force and politicians enough to make those decisions for you and stick to them?

jimmy two times Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes Sean the Police do make mistakes, and the guys > who were nicked in the raid may well of been > innocent on this occasion and at the time they > were allegedly tortured they were indeed only > suspects. But you can bet your bottom dollar that > they probably were drug dealers with previous > convictions. And ok, so they may have served some > negligible amount of time in the clink for those > crimes. But you've got to admit, it puts a smile > on your face to read the blighters suffered a bit > on this occasion. "If they didn't do this they did something similar". I'm sure that causes some kind of facial expression but it isn't a smile.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What was the password? "GETTHATFECKINMALLETOFFMYKNOB"

I agree with your first two sentences. I have a sneaking suspicion that we aren't going to agree on much more. So i'll just say one more thing - this debate for me is the same as the death penalty debate. It isn't about who they are. It's about who we are.

It is called R v Brown and others. A group of consenting adults was caught (don't know how) doing various violent things to each others private parts. They had a password, so that they could yell out in pain, but the activity would carry on, but if they yelled the password it would stop. Various people in the party were charged with assault type charges (to be fair, not sure if anyone was actually charged with torture). The question up for consideration was whether a person can legally consent to that kind of assault - if they could it wouldn't be an assault. It was found that they could, but the poor chaps in question were still convicted - of offending public morals. Not sure what that adds to the debate really but when studing the case I had a jolly good chuckle at reading various barristers terribly serious submissions to the court of appeal about the true nature of nailing genitals to a plank.....

Well since you mention it there is actually a very interesting court case on exactly that point ????!

I hate to rise to the bait, I really do, but I can't help it. JTT, that post makes me really sad. And not because I am a softy liberal type that thinks they deserve a jolly good telling off and some therapy. Torture is just wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. Always.

I don't want to give you ideas but the standard contract of sale actually says they have to leave it in a clean state and have taken all their stuff with them! Maybe you could threaten to charge them for cleaners, if you are really cross?!

Brendan I think you are right, I'm not sure that I do understand your point. I'm not sure how you can have an execution that doesn't demonstrate a point. The only reason a state undertakes an execution is to demonstrate the point that what the offender has done is unacceptable. But then again you are entitled to your view!

Brendan - I understand what you are saying, but the end result is the same. A person has still died. And so I come back to my first question: how can you kill someone who has killed someone in order to demonstrate that killing someone is unacceptable?

Daizie - I wouldn't defend or excuse what they did for a second. I would lock them up for life, and not in a "please help yourself to sky TV and a snooker table" type way. And if it was my children they had killed I'd probably be at the front of the queue with that knife you've just mentioned. But I still say that the state should never ever kill its own citizens.

The death penalty might prevent reoffending but it is the wrong way to go. You can't kill someone who has killed someone to prove that killing someone is wrong. Offending rates in the US show that the death penalty is neither cheaper (lenghty and expensive appeals process) nor an effective deterent. If the state kills its own citizens then we are all made less humane. It's not about who they are, it's about who we are.

Indiepanda - Tomlinsons in dulwich village sell Hobbs clothes - or at least they used to, I haven't been in there for a while.

I love Nina Christie, I have bought some lovely jewellery for presents etc from her which were a bit unusual and reasonably priced too. Plus she has also repaired a few things for me really well and I think she does commissions and engagement rings as well. I would definitely recommend her.

You're welcome DD - we do coffee, different teas, pastries, cakes, fruit juices etc all day so do pop in and give it a try. If you want to concentrate and do some work then I'd recommend the front of the bar. The bit round the back has sofas and kids toys and loos with a baby changer so you might find it a bit noisy if a group of mums turn up. If you can't find a free power point just ask a member of staff and they'll be able to sort something out for you.

I will immediately declare an interest in Green & Blue since I am part of its management. We do have a number of free power points near several different tables, and quite a few people come in to use their laptops. I'll let you decide whether the coffee is up to scratch but I certainly drink a lot of it!

Glad to hear it MM!

Thanks Kristymac1!

Puzzled - as you say, planning isn't the responsibility of G&B as we don't own the building. I don't want to speak for our landlord, but you can see from the planning notice that the council have asked for the second storey of the extension that he built to be removed. As you'll know, G&B only uses the ground floor, which is the part of the building works that have been allowed to remain, so it's business as usual for us. I'll leave it to others to debate whether that is a fair/sensible use of taxpayers money!

It was Jolene (SG, surely you have also heard 9 to 5?!) Not sure who gets to go next.....

It's gone a bit quiet so here's a clue. Think theme parks and big hair!