Ashamed to be British?

What about all the people who were convicted of a crime they said they never committed to be executed to then to be found they were innercent all the time down the road, a lot of enforcement officers had blind eyes to the true facts or needed a quick closure of the case from pressure from above, in the old days there were more bad cops than honest cops around and in some places nothing has changed.

Ashley
 
Last edited:
I have distant family who were NYPD back in the day. Have it on good authority that many cops, if they chased a perp onto a roof would simply push them off.

Judge, jury, executioner.
 
Hell, I tried to read this thread from beginning to end. Lawd have mercy. I'm not ashamed to be British, because I'm not, but quite proud to have owned British Bikes for over 40 years. As far as "Capital Punishment" goes or any other Punishment, it's just that. Just like G nipper says in post # 25. It's a Punishment, Not a Deterrent. It could be a deterrent, depending on your state of mind and conscious, I guess?

Quick story. A very close friend of mine was married to the Chief of Police of a local town. Well he's the Chief and most certainly knows the Law. After domestic violence charges he was suspended from his job and a restraining order granted against him. Time went on, after the suspension he had someone try and set her house on fire, not immediately, but sometime afterwards. They never pinned it to him. As time went by Chiefy was out on bail, he conspired with the guy who set the fire at the house, to have her murdered.

After the hit man got sheepish and only wanted to bust her up and not murder her, he went to the Prosecutors Office and told them of the plot. Prosecutors Office wired the Hit Man and had Chiefy on tape providing a gun and telling Hit Man to carry out his duties.

Luckily the hit man was deterred by the different punishments, I guess. Murder as opposed to what ever lesser charge he would have gotten for breaking her bones. If caught.

So who knows, Capital Punishment may be a deterrent to some, but not to others who may even be the Law, and think they are above it.

My friend, The victim, is still alive and going about with her life. Chiefy is in Federal prison. Don't know where the hit man is?
 
Mind you, as in most threads we seem to have wandered off the original premise of the current state of the UK to a debate on capital punishment, however closely they may be linked..
For the benefit of overseas listeners, this story, if read in isolation with no prior knowledge of this volatile issue, highlights to me the ludicrous situation we are now in, and the disparity of reactions..
 
The fact the police even felt the need to come out and say that is a shocking inditement on what’s happening in society today.

Personally I don’t agree we should all be taking a knee for BLM... because I believe all we have to say is “life matters” as in all life, equally.

But, clearly, there is a lot of perfectly understandable public emotion around the topic currently. So... were those who flew the WLM banner insensitive, un empathetic, rude, plain stupid ? I would say yes, yes, yes and yes.

But quite clearly, no laws have been broken.

And if laws were structured so that they had, that would be even worse.

Our Canadian members will quite likely be very familiar with this kind of topic with the free speech debate spearheaded by Jordan Peterson in Canada currently.

For those who aren’t familiar, check him out on YouTube. He has many interesting ideas and observations on this and related topics...
 
Fast Eddie said:
The fact the police even felt the need to come out and say that is a shocking inditement on what’s happening in society today.

Personally I don’t agree we should all be taking a knee for BLM... because I believe all we have to say is “life matters” as in all life, equally.

But, clearly, there is a lot of perfectly understandable public emotion around the topic currently. So... were those who flew the WLM banner insensitive, un empathetic, rude, plain stupid ? I would say yes, yes, yes and yes.

But quite clearly, no laws have been broken.

And if laws were structured so that they had, that would be even worse.

Our Canadian members will quite likely be very familiar with this kind of topic with the free speech debate spearheaded by Jordan Peterson in Canada currently.

For those who aren’t familiar, check him out on YouTube. He has many interesting ideas and observations on this and related topics...
Click to expand...
I'm sure an argument could be made that those flying the banner were simply exercising THEIR right to free speech too, BUT: It's the the way it appears that will be denied them now, officialdom throwing themselves on their swords to distance themselves, airport managers promising 'tighter controls', the broad assumption that 'everyone is outraged, disgusted etc..
Stupid they may be, but the response worries me more..
 
EstuaryBoy said:
I'm sure an argument could be made that those flying the banner were simply exercising THEIR right to free speech too, BUT: It's the the way it appears that will be denied them now, officialdom throwing themselves on their swords to distance themselves, airport managers promising 'tighter controls', the broad assumption that 'everyone is outraged, disgusted etc..
Stupid they may be, but the response worries me more..
Click to expand...
It would be a pretty poor argument... wouldyou defend as a right,the right to shout 'fire' in a crowded public venue and cause a panic maybe resulting in death.
 
oldmikew said:
It would be a pretty poor argument... wouldyou defend as a right,the right to shout 'fire' in a crowded public venue and cause a panic maybe resulting in death.
Click to expand...

I disagree there. How can saying white lives matter be compared to falsely shouting fire and causing death!?

Free speech means defending ones right to express an opinion or point, and be open to debating it. Debating opposing points is a fundamental requirement of a civilisation. Shouting ‘fire’ falsely is not expressing an opinion...

I can think of many valid arguments these banner people might have. I can also think of many invalid ones too, so I’m not going to second guess.

Apparently, even saying ‘all lives matter’ is being called extreme right wing and racist now.

To anyone who understands the English language enough to understand that simple three word sentance, that is patently absurd.
 
Sorry. I find that a poor simile.... It didn't cause panic or death, and absolutely no reason why it should...
(In answer to Mike)
 
Mike Sullivan said:
Eek, that was some school outing, did the naughty children have to go & see an Andrew Lloyd-Webber show? I just like to tell people that I went to a good school, 'cos it was Approved. (ba boom, here 'til Thursday ;) ).

My issues with Capital punishment are simple & as follows:

1) Historical evidence clearly shows that it is not a deterrent (however much one might feel it ought to be so).

2) The law is not infallible, you can't resurrect an innocent person who's been executed (& this has happened more than once!)

Here's Priti Patel & Ian Hislop on (UK) Question Time, topic - 'Does Capital Punishment belong in a civilised society?':

Click to expand...



It was good to hear this and especially Ian Hislop. I wonder ifanyone here remembers the so called Guildford 4? Only private eye poined to what was a serious flaw in the presecution case... It was claimed they had driven from Guilford to the Elephant and Castle in either 30or 40mins . Back then the M3 finished well short of Kingston and the old A3had lots o traffic lights. The police claimed they had doneit at 2am when the roads were virtually empty but their case was the so called 4 had done it in the evening rush hour!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No member of the jury who drove a car and had any familiarity with London could possibly have believed the Crown case... Yet they convicted and if there had been capitol punishment the innocent 4 would certainly have been executed.
 
Then the blame lies with a poor defence in Court... But again, the poor dead victim may well have been an innocent too, yet they're always secondary in any discussion...
 
<Free speech means defending ones right to express an opinion or point, and be open to debating it. Debating opposing points is a fundamental requirement of a civilisation. >

I absolutely agree with you Nigel ... Freedom of speech has conditions attached to it , it is not a carte blanche to utter any words under any circumstances..
 
EstuaryBoy said:
Then the blame lies with a poor defence in Court... But again, the poor dead victim may well have been an innocent too, yet they're always secondary in any discussion...
Click to expand...

No the whole country apart from Private Eye seemed to believe it... Like most jury trials involving capital punishment , it seemed more like a ritual sacrifice than a rational secular process. The jury preferred to convict innocent men ratherthan no one and they were put under enormouse presure to so do
 
oldmikew said:
<Free speech means defending ones right to express an opinion or point, and be open to debating it. Debating opposing points is a fundamental requirement of a civilisation. >

I absolutely agree with you Nigel ... Freedom of speech has conditions attached to it , it is not a carte blanche to utter any words under any circumstances..
Click to expand...

But who decides Mike? As soon as someone has judgment over that, there is no longer free speech!

It is already (quite rightly) illegal to incite violence and many other things by speech.

But to try and make it the law, as to what is or is not decent, is a very dangerous and slippery slope.

I prefer the argument to let people speak openly, and let people debate them and highlight the shortcomings in their arguments. If they’re stupid, it’ll show.

If you don’t allow this, opinion stays in the hands of ideologist, and extremists. Unchallenged and un-debated, where it then grows and morphs without anyone to counter and ‘course correct’.

With no-where else for turn in the world to hear and voice opinions, it’s not difficult to see how such ideologists attract and ‘brainwash’ angry, young, influential men.
 
I think it is diabolical that in 21st century England, just changing one word in two equally viable three word sentences can provoke such diametric actions....
One is deemed acceptable (and actively promoted), the other deemed abhorrent to the point of investigation and castigation.
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie said:
But who decides Mike? As soon as someone has judgment over that, there is no longer free speech!

It is already (quite rightly) illegal to incite violence and many other things by speech.

But to try and make it the law, as to what is or is not decent, is a very dangerous and slippery slope.

I prefer the argument to let people speak openly, and let people debate them and highlight the shortcomings in their arguments. If they’re stupid, it’ll show.

If you don’t allow this, opinion stays in the hands of ideologist, and extremists. Unchallenged and un-debated, where it then grows and morphs.
Click to expand...
Fast Eddie said:
But who decides Mike? As soon as someone has judgment over that, there is no longer free speech!

It is already (quite rightly) illegal to incite violence and many other things by speech.

But to try and make it the law, as to what is or is not decent, is a very dangerous and slippery slope.

I prefer the argument to let people speak openly, and let people debate them and highlight the shortcomings in their arguments. If they’re stupid, it’ll show.

If you don’t allow this, opinion stays in the hands of ideologist, and extremists. Unchallenged and un-debated, where it then grows and morphs without anyone to counter and ‘course correct’.

With no-where else for turn in the world to hear and voice opinions, it’s not difficult to see how such ideologists attract and ‘brainwash’ angry, young, influential men.
Click to expand...


I think the best answer to this was given many centuries ago with the establishment of Providence in New England... Provided you are sincere and in good faith,then you should be free to espouse any doctrine.
 
Back
Top