Translation: You can’t produce anything, not one thing.





Because it is not evidence of what I asked you for. The fact that in any given country, out of millions of inhabitants, a significant amount of support can be found for prety much any proposition (even the frequent occurrence of alien anal probes), does not equate to any one of those views forming part of the judicial process. If a US state executes a criminal, many residents may personally feel that some measure of revenge has been exacted, but that doesn't mean that the concept of revenge was involved in the decision whether or not he should die, which would be based on laws enacted, processes followed and decisions made with a total absence of the concept of revenge. Get it?





Homosexual? Uganda?? As we were neither discussing Uganda, nor homosexuality, nor what laws I think "fair and reasonable", I nominate that for your second-weirdest remark to press.





No, I "mentioned" it as it is the ultimate manifestation of "parity" between offender and victim, which YOU seem to favour as an aim. [iI'm[/i the one who [idisputed your[/i remark about "parity" between perpetrator and victim as some sort of aim. Remember?





Any given concept is either reasonable or not, depending what it is. Its age is not relevant. That the earth isn't flat is a pretty ancient concept, but I think it is reasonable. Aliens bent on performing anal probes is a very recent concept, but I don't think it's a reasonable one.



Again, the "parity" concept was introduced by you, not me.





Beside your point entirely, but anyway if you've looked it up, then you'll know that they can only do so on compassionate grounds of great age or infirmity. Not because they have become fully rehabilitated.



Plus, you've got it the wrong way round, since it [iused to be[/i the Home Secretary who decided how long you'd serve, but now that decision is made by the Trial Judge. The Home Secretary's role and power in the process has been greatly reduced, not increased, as you seem to believe.



Moving on, following the recent ECHR ruling, Jeremy Bamber was quoted as saying:



That's perhaps as twisted logic as anything you've come up with.

Except I have.



I don’t know how I can make it any clearer or how many times I can say it to you. Im not saying that the judiciary is acting out of vengeance, im not saying that an individual judge is conducting a personal vendetta, im not saying any of the strawmen you keep inventing. I have said, numerous times, that a state, which facilitates a death sentence, is doing so, in a large part, out of a wish for revenge. Do you understand?



Why is Uganda and their death penalty irrelevant when you have repeatedly tried to expand the argument to not just the law in this country but elsewhere? You have repeatedly asked for examples, why isn’t Uganda an example?





So you did mention it? Im not sure what you are disputing here, whether you mentioned it which you admit you did, or whether i thought it interesting and relevant to the debate.

Mediaeval can be used as a pejorative term to describe something as primitive. I assumed this was the context in which you were using it, im not sure why you would be using it in the context of a period of time between the 5th and 15th century. Was this not the case?



Im not sure why you are now making things up. I have in no way made any comment on whether the power of the home secretary has increased or decreased. Nor did I state that the home secretary gave the minimum sentencing. I made the factually correct statement [iPrisoners with whole life tarrifs will be given a minumum term after which they can apply for parole. Those given a whole life order can apply for release through the home secretary. Thankfully, gone are the days when we locked somone in the tower of london and forgot about them.[/i Which you couldn’t argue against so you seem to have made up something you could argue against.

Have you? Well then many times you have stated bollox since a state is not a sentient entity, and so cannot have a "wish", whether revenge or anything else.





To a discussion of the death penalty in a modern judicial system such as the UK and the US? You don't know?







Your simple statement was that "Those given a whole life order can apply for release through the home secretary". That is simply wrong, for the majority of such prisoners. They cannot in fact do so, unless there are exceptional compassionate grounds such as terminal illness.



To summarise the actual position, you should have said:

" the general rule is that those given a whole life order can not apply for parole or release. Most if not all will die in jail. If, exceptionally, there are compelling compassionate grounds such as terminal illness or great age, then the Home Secretary can order that individual's release".



My objection was that the truth of their situation is almost the opposite of what anyone would conclude by reading your bald claim.

When you are needing to pick and and choose which parts of not only a post but a sentence to respond to because you cant respond to the actual argument, and when you have not only had to resort to making things up but cant even apologise for doing so, and when you need to dismiss entire nations as lesser in one of the most shocking displays of wedtern arrogance this side of the bnp, its probably time to reasses your standpoint

There's little left that interests me enough to bother with. But the irony of you making that complaint, yet not yourself managing to respond to a single point, is noted.



"Dismissing entire nations" is just another invention of yours, and "Lesser" is your word, but Uganda is on any rational view not a centre of jurisprudence equal to this country.



And on that note, as mercifully it seems you've run out of nonsense, my work here is done.

No please carry on, he's not called you mad yet.

Why wouldi respond to things you have made up? I dont think its interesting for me or anyone else to watch you argue with yourself but even if they did you can carry on without me.

Yes like that!

I see that a court in Egypt has sentenced 21 football thugs to death for their part in the massacre of 74 people, these Islamic nations don't half like to dish it out.

Don't forget it wasn't that long ago that we were still executing people for murder. Although what concerns me more than the actual sentences is the reaction of the families of those who were killed. It seemed more like a baying mob than grieving families and whilst I understand the desire for revenge on the part of family members (I know I would), the reactions still seemed very extreme.

What would you consider a reasonable response?