Chris Huhne out of jail!

[Dry Gulch Pete]

after serving 8 weeks out of 8 months!!

So is his missus!!!

Talks of book deals!!!

A Right Honorable man - so are they all, ALL...

--
(_(_)_)
DGP

[Norman Wells]

Dry Gulch Pete wrote:

> after serving 8 weeks out of 8 months!!
>
> So is his missus!!!

How much longer do you want to pay for them?

[Dry Gulch Pete]

"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:B_0kt.43877$jP.3...@fx12.fr7...

Well, Norman, you and I would have served half of 8 months with one month
off for good behaviour, if we behaved - that's 12 weeks!
Mind you, he's on curfew and fitted with an electronic device and we pay for
that - might be pricey! :D

--
DGP

[Ar]

Makes no difference, we've been paying for Huhne ever since he became an MP.

[Dry Gulch Pete]

"Ar" <A...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:51909e06$0$1098$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk...

LOL, yes he's an expensive bastard!

--
DGP

[Brian Watson]

"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:B_0kt.43877$jP.3...@fx12.fr7...

On that basis, I suppose you'd ignore all breaches of the law because they
cost "us" money?

Or maybe you think he should've been shot? That's relatively cheap.

--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."

[Norman Wells]

Not according to this:

http://www.firsttimeinprison.co.uk/release/

"HDC, or release on tag, is the system by which you are released early
and fitted with an electronic tag around your ankle to monitor your
adherence to a specified curfew. You will be required to stay at your
chosen address, normally for 12 hours each day (overnight), and a
machine will be installed in your house which is able to verify whether
the tag (and you) are within range.

A release on tag is available to prisoners with sentences between 3
months and 4 years and the eligible date for it is the later of 25% of
the way through your sentence (equivalent to 50% of the way through your
expected time in prison otherwise) and 4 months before 50% of your
sentence. For example:
8 month sentence = 4 months in prison = tag date after 2 months in
prison"

[Norman Wells]

Brian Watson wrote:
> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
> news:B_0kt.43877$jP.3...@fx12.fr7...
>> Dry Gulch Pete wrote:
>>
>>> after serving 8 weeks out of 8 months!!
>>>
>>> So is his missus!!!
>>
>> How much longer do you want to pay for them?
>
> On that basis, I suppose you'd ignore all breaches of the law because
> they cost "us" money?
>
> Or maybe you think he should've been shot? That's relatively cheap.

No, as I keep telling people, the answer is Tasering, which is just as
cheap. I reckon a sentence of three goes in 24 hours, say, would deter
most from reoffending as well as satisfying the desire of the public to
punish the evil miscreant. Then we wouldn't have any of this argument
about the cost of putting him up even for 2 months in one of her
majesty's hotels. He'd be free to go away to resume his family life
with no permanent harm done and nothing to show for his pains.

What's not to like?

[GordonD]

"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message

news:zD1kt.20616$ne1....@fx07.fr7...

Taser batteries don't grow on trees, you know...
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."

[GordonD]

"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message

news:6s1kt.23323$EE6....@fx06.fr7...

Did I imagine it or was there a case recently where a prisoner had a tag
fitted to his *artificial leg*?

[Dis Manibus]

"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message

news:zD1kt.20616$ne1....@fx07.fr7...

That, sir, is pure genius.

[abelard]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 09:24:20 GMT, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:

>The fact it will eventually kill someone ?

pay for insurance out of the savings

[Dry Gulch Pete]

"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message

news:zD1kt.20616$ne1....@fx07.fr7...

> Brian Watson wrote:
>> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
>> news:B_0kt.43877$jP.3...@fx12.fr7...
>>> Dry Gulch Pete wrote:
>>>
>>>> after serving 8 weeks out of 8 months!!
>>>>
>>>> So is his missus!!!
>>>
>>> How much longer do you want to pay for them?
>>
>> On that basis, I suppose you'd ignore all breaches of the law because
>> they cost "us" money?
>>
>> Or maybe you think he should've been shot? That's relatively cheap.
>
> No, as I keep telling people, the answer is Tasering, which is just as
> cheap.

OR Taliban-style gentle caning of parties as featured on Sky News a coupla
years ago - token spanking and, for example, his missus gets to keep her
togs on.
In the case of Chris, though, he should have his trousers taken down and be
beaten severely by, say, Graham Norton or John Barrowman, lol!

> What's not to like?

I'd pay money to see that!

--
DGP

[Bill]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 10:07:27 +0100, "Dis Manibus" <d...@manibus.com>

What percentage does Tasering kill?

[Norman Wells]

What percentage does prison kill?

[Bill]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:19:49 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

In eight week?

Very few...

[Norman Wells]

Jethro_uk wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 09:37:35 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
>

> The fact it will eventually kill someone ?

Well, it's a risk-benefit equation of course. However, according to
Wikipedia, it's a pretty safe thing:

"A study led by William Bozeman of Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center of
nearly 1,000 persons subjected to Taser use concluded that 99.7% of the
subjects had either minor injuries, such as scrapes and bruises, or none
at all; while three persons suffered injuries severe enough to need
hospital admission, and two other subjects died. Their autopsy reports
indicated neither death was related to the use of a Taser."

The great thing about doing it in a controlled environment is that the
felon can be certified to be medically fit enough to receive it, and he
can be given something reasonably soft to fall on, falling being the
major cause of injury, or can be tied up so that he can't fall at all.

But don't you think it's a neat, cheap solution that will deter repeat
offending by actually doing something to the offender that he really,
really won't like because, as one volunter Chief Constable said, "it
hurts like hell"? We're lacking any such remedy at the moment, and
those we have are therefore regarded merely as occupational hazards.

[Farmer Giles]

On 13/05/2013 09:00, Dry Gulch Pete wrote:
> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
> news:B_0kt.43877$jP.3...@fx12.fr7...
>> Dry Gulch Pete wrote:
>>
>>> after serving 8 weeks out of 8 months!!
>>>
>>> So is his missus!!!
>>
>> How much longer do you want to pay for them?
>
> Well, Norman, you and I would have served half of 8 months with one month
> off for good behaviour, if we behaved - that's 12 weeks!

Nonsense. Everybody would serve half of that 8 months unless they were
eligible for HDC - and many aren't, either through their circumstances
and record, or the offence they have committed. There is absolutely no
reason why Chris Huhne would not get the maximum time on HDC or Category
D, or anyone like him - no previous convictions, no record of violence
and a stable home to be released to.

> Mind you, he's on curfew and fitted with an electronic device and we pay for
> that - might be pricey! :D
>

Much cheaper than being kept in prison

[Bill]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 14:40:35 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>. Their autopsy reports
>indicated neither death was related to the use of a Taser."
>

Well they would do wouldn't they, this is the police zapping people.

No blame ever attaches to them for the odd dead body littering the
place.

[Robin Chapman]

On 13/05/2013 09:00, Dry Gulch Pete wrote:

or Prycey :-)

[the dog from that film you saw]

On 13/05/2013 07:39, Dry Gulch Pete wrote:
> after serving 8 weeks out of 8 months!!
>
> So is his missus!!!
>
> Talks of book deals!!!
>
> A Right Honorable man - so are they all, ALL...
>

the scrum outside his house was hilarious.
as the bbc camera watched from outside (maybe they had a weak feeble
cameraman) the main thing i saw was a random reporter with a mic from
elsewhere looking really confused to have been captured on someone
else's camera.
then we were treated to his cruella de ville lookalike ex wife standing
next to her spokesman who read out a statement that she could have
simply read out herself - instead she stood there with a silly look on
her face while she had it done for her.

--
Gareth.
That fly.... Is your magic wand.

[Norman Wells]

Jethro_uk wrote:

> I think my main objection is visceral, rather than intellectual - it
> smacks of going back to birching, flogging, branding - all of which
> IMHO just raises the atmosphere of brutality in society in general.

I don't think society in general actually has any great objection to a
little bit of brutality where petty criminals are concerned. Moreover,
the difference from the earlier solutions is that Tasering leaves no
significant marks, and there's nothing to take lurid photographs of to
put in the redtops. The offender will be back in society within a day,
looking outwardly none the worse for wear. It won't therefore be
regarded as unacceptably brutal but as something clinical and
controlled, and worthwhile. It would be both punishment and, I believe,
effective deterrence against reoffending which none of the currently
available sanctions seem to be.

[tim......]

"Dry Gulch Pete" <paci...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:kmq1kf$6ju$1...@dont-email.me...

> after serving 8 weeks out of 8 months!!
>
> So is his missus!!!
>
> Talks of book deals!!!

well more fool the publishers then, they have a history of overpaying for
political ramblings, so nothing new there

tim

[tim......]

"Ar" <A...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:51909e06$0$1098$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk...

we were paying far more when he as was MEP

[Col]

"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message

news:zD1kt.20616$ne1....@fx07.fr7...

So what you are essentially advocating here is corporal punishment
for adults.
Didn't we used to do this in prisons a hundred years ago, we certainly
had 'birching' on the Isle of Man much more recently than that.
Did it actually *work*?
And if it did, why was it abolished?
--
Col

The gulls have plucked out my eyes!

[the dog from that film you saw]

wasn't some kind of law passed to stop criminals from making money out
of books about their crimes?

[Norman Wells]

Col wrote:
> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
> news:zD1kt.20616$ne1....@fx07.fr7...
>> Brian Watson wrote:
>>> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
>>> news:B_0kt.43877$jP.3...@fx12.fr7...
>>>> Dry Gulch Pete wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> after serving 8 weeks out of 8 months!!
>>>>>
>>>>> So is his missus!!!
>>>>
>>>> How much longer do you want to pay for them?
>>>
>>> On that basis, I suppose you'd ignore all breaches of the law
>>> because they cost "us" money?
>>>
>>> Or maybe you think he should've been shot? That's relatively cheap.
>>
>> No, as I keep telling people, the answer is Tasering, which is just
>> as cheap. I reckon a sentence of three goes in 24 hours, say, would
>> deter most from reoffending as well as satisfying the desire of the
>> public to punish the evil miscreant. Then we wouldn't have any of
>> this argument about the cost of putting him up even for 2 months in
>> one of her majesty's hotels. He'd be free to go away to resume his
>> family life with no permanent harm done and nothing to show for his
>> pains.
>
> So what you are essentially advocating here is corporal punishment
> for adults.

Just the infliction of pain they don't like but without physical signs
of injury, call it what you like.

> Didn't we used to do this in prisons a hundred years ago, we certainly
> had 'birching' on the Isle of Man much more recently than that.

Yes.

> Did it actually *work*?

The populace thought it did, and I think it probably did.

> And if it did, why was it abolished?

Mimsy European human rights legislation.

[geopelia]

"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message

news:OTckt.61209$9K4....@fx24.fr7...

They had the Cat too, when I was young, for Robbery with Violence and
offences in prison.
And they hanged murderers and wartime spies. I remember how we counted down
the last seconds and cheered.
Those were the days! A murder trial had a queue right down the street at the
Old Bailey.
The Judge put on the Black Cap (a silk square) and solemly pronounced the
Death Sentence.

Murder was a serious crime in those days.
Now it's just "Murder? So what?"

(But nobody has been hanged, drawn and quartered for centuries.
Some people would queue to watch that too, if they got the chance.
Not me!)

[GordonD]

"geopelia" <geop...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:kmsf1a$eb$1...@dont-email.me...

And if you were innocent, tough shit.

[GordonD]

"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message

news:OTckt.61209$9K4....@fx24.fr7...

That reminds me of people who say things like, "I was often given the belt
when I was at school and it never did me any harm!" If you were given it
more than once, it clearly wasn't much of a deterrent either...

[Norman Wells]

GordonD wrote:

> That reminds me of people who say things like, "I was often given the
> belt when I was at school and it never did me any harm!" If you were
> given it more than once, it clearly wasn't much of a deterrent
> either...

I don't think anyone would be quite so happy with being Tasered, nor say
anything quite as flippant.

[Col]

"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message

news:OTckt.61209$9K4....@fx24.fr7...

> Col wrote:
>
>> Did it actually *work*?
>
> The populace thought it did, and I think it probably did.

Never mind what the populace or you 'thought', did anybody
ever actually ask those who received it whether it acted as
a deterrent?

>> And if it did, why was it abolished?
>
> Mimsy European human rights legislation.

Say no to Europe and yes to public floggings!

[Norman Wells]

Col wrote:
> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
> news:OTckt.61209$9K4....@fx24.fr7...
>> Col wrote:
>>
>>> Did it actually *work*?
>>
>> The populace thought it did, and I think it probably did.
>
> Never mind what the populace or you 'thought',

Why? Whose country is it? Whose opinions matter?

> did anybody
> ever actually ask those who received it whether it acted as
> a deterrent?

Anyone who wants it abolished will say it doesn't. Anyone who wants to
retain it will say it does.

But do you think there are many for whom, having been judicially tasered
once, it would not be a deterrent, and a powerful one at that?

>>> And if it did, why was it abolished?
>>
>> Mimsy European human rights legislation.
>
> Say no to Europe and yes to public floggings!

Whose right is it to say what the punishments for miscreants should be?

[Col]

Norman Wells wrote:
> Col wrote:
>> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
>> news:OTckt.61209$9K4....@fx24.fr7...
>>> Col wrote:
>>>
>>>> Did it actually *work*?
>>>
>>> The populace thought it did, and I think it probably did.
>>
>> Never mind what the populace or you 'thought',
>
> Why? Whose country is it? Whose opinions matter?

Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got one.

It depends upon what the 'opinion' is based upon as to
whether it 'matters' or not. If it's based upon misinformation,
no information, anecdotal evidence or mere 'assumptions'
then it's worth less than something that is at least based
upon something that resembles 'facts'.

In your case, on what evidence do you base your claim that
it worked?

>> did anybody
>> ever actually ask those who received it whether it acted as
>> a deterrent?
>
> Anyone who wants it abolished will say it doesn't. Anyone who wants
> to retain it will say it does.

Well yes, but that's not answering my question as to whether
anybody ever actually asked criminals who had received corporal
punishment whether it had actually worked.

[GordonD]

"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message

news:oTqkt.61614$9K4....@fx24.fr7...

I was responding to a comment about the birch, not a Taser.

[Norman Wells]

GordonD wrote:
> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
> news:oTqkt.61614$9K4....@fx24.fr7...
>> GordonD wrote:
>>
>>> That reminds me of people who say things like, "I was often given
>>> the belt when I was at school and it never did me any harm!" If you
>>> were given it more than once, it clearly wasn't much of a deterrent
>>> either...
>>
>> I don't think anyone would be quite so happy with being Tasered, nor
>> say anything quite as flippant.
>
> I was responding to a comment about the birch, not a Taser.

What percentage of those birched came back for more, I wonder? The
answer to that might be quite revealing.

[Norman Wells]

Col wrote:
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> Col wrote:
>>> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
>>> news:OTckt.61209$9K4....@fx24.fr7...
>>>> Col wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Did it actually *work*?
>>>>
>>>> The populace thought it did, and I think it probably did.
>>>
>>> Never mind what the populace or you 'thought',
>>
>> Why? Whose country is it? Whose opinions matter?
>
> Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got one.
>
> It depends upon what the 'opinion' is based upon as to
> whether it 'matters' or not. If it's based upon misinformation,
> no information, anecdotal evidence or mere 'assumptions'
> then it's worth less than something that is at least based
> upon something that resembles 'facts'.

Who says? If it's society's judgement that it works then that's all
that matters, regardless of how each individual opinion is arrived at,
which can't be determined or scrutinised anyway.

If the people want it, why shouldn't the people have it?

> In your case, on what evidence do you base your claim that
> it worked?

I didn't say that. What I said was I thought it probably did. It's a
gut feeling. If there was proof to the contrary, I'd take it on board.
In the absence of such proof, I'll continue to believe as I do.

>>> did anybody
>>> ever actually ask those who received it whether it acted as
>>> a deterrent?
>>
>> Anyone who wants it abolished will say it doesn't. Anyone who wants
>> to retain it will say it does.
>
> Well yes, but that's not answering my question as to whether
> anybody ever actually asked criminals who had received corporal
> punishment whether it had actually worked.

I've no idea whether they were asked. However, it's a reasonable
assumption that they didn't like it, would therefore like it to be
abolished, and would therefore say that it doesn't act as a deterrent in
order to get it abolished.

[Bill]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 18:19:57 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

Not really, punishment is never a deterrent, only the high
probability of capture deters.

[Norman Wells]

Not if there's no, or no unpleasant, punishment at the end.

That's why you get so many deliberate fouls in football. If you got
sent off and heavily fined for pulling a shirt, for example, it would
stop overnight.

[Bill]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 22:41:16 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>

So why aren't footballers deliberately crippling people like they do
in American Football?

[Norman Wells]

Because they do get sent off, heavily fined, suspended, and vilified of
course.

[Vidcapper]

ISTM anyone *not* deterred by birching, has to be a masochist!

--
Regards,

Paul Hyett

[Col]

"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message

news:Awukt.87197$VF3....@fx28.fr7...

> Col wrote:
>
> Who says? If it's society's judgement that it works then that's all that
> matters, regardless of how each individual opinion is arrived at, which
> can't be determined or scrutinised anyway.
>
> If the people want it, why shouldn't the people have it?

And the public gets what the public wants!
The Jam wrote a song about that you know.

Fortunately, the public doesn't always get what it wants.
A majority might well be in favour of hanging, that doesn't
mean we should bring it back.

>> In your case, on what evidence do you base your claim that
>> it worked?
>
> I didn't say that. What I said was I thought it probably did. It's a gut
> feeling. If there was proof to the contrary, I'd take it on board. In the
> absence of such proof, I'll continue to believe as I do.

Ok, 'probably' then if you want to split hairs.
I'm not even opposed to it in principle but I'd need an awful lot
more than gut feelings and hunches to convince me.

>>
>> Well yes, but that's not answering my question as to whether
>> anybody ever actually asked criminals who had received corporal
>> punishment whether it had actually worked.
>
> I've no idea whether they were asked. However, it's a reasonable
> assumption that they didn't like it, would therefore like it to be
> abolished, and would therefore say that it doesn't act as a deterrent in
> order to get it abolished.

I'm sure they don't like prison either, but I doubt they'd say that

in order to get it abolished.

They may well be some who got it and felt it helped in their
rehabilitation, others who felt it made little difference.

[Norman Wells]

Col wrote:
> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
> news:Awukt.87197$VF3....@fx28.fr7...
>> Col wrote:
>>
>> Who says? If it's society's judgement that it works then that's all
>> that matters, regardless of how each individual opinion is arrived
>> at, which can't be determined or scrutinised anyway.
>>
>> If the people want it, why shouldn't the people have it?
>
> And the public gets what the public wants!
> The Jam wrote a song about that you know.
>
> Fortunately, the public doesn't always get what it wants.
> A majority might well be in favour of hanging, that doesn't
> mean we should bring it back.

Why not? Who should decide such matters if not the people? And on what
basis?

>>> In your case, on what evidence do you base your claim that
>>> it worked?
>>
>> I didn't say that. What I said was I thought it probably did. It's
>> a gut feeling. If there was proof to the contrary, I'd take it on
>> board. In the absence of such proof, I'll continue to believe as I
>> do.
>
> Ok, 'probably' then if you want to split hairs.
> I'm not even opposed to it in principle but I'd need an awful lot
> more than gut feelings and hunches to convince me.

Tell me, how you would devise an evidence-based scientific trial to
prove either that it works or it doesn't? If you can't, what's left
apart from gut feelings and hunches?

>>> Well yes, but that's not answering my question as to whether
>>> anybody ever actually asked criminals who had received corporal
>>> punishment whether it had actually worked.
>>
>> I've no idea whether they were asked. However, it's a reasonable
>> assumption that they didn't like it, would therefore like it to be
>> abolished, and would therefore say that it doesn't act as a
>> deterrent in order to get it abolished.
>
> I'm sure they don't like prison either, but I doubt they'd say that
> in order to get it abolished.
> They may well be some who got it and felt it helped in their
> rehabilitation, others who felt it made little difference.

It's not really meant to help in their rehabilitation but to punish and
deter. It's definitely stick rather than carrot. And I don't really
care, to be honest, what the offenders themselves think about it.

[Col]

"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message

news:D1Nkt.68604$9K4...@fx24.fr7...

> Col wrote:
>>
>> Ok, 'probably' then if you want to split hairs.
>> I'm not even opposed to it in principle but I'd need an awful lot
>> more than gut feelings and hunches to convince me.
>
> Tell me, how you would devise an evidence-based scientific trial to prove
> either that it works or it doesn't? If you can't, what's left apart from
> gut feelings and hunches?
>

So you need a lot more convincing that it doesn't work and
I need a lot more convincing that it does.

I think I'll leave it at that.

[Bill]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 15:33:49 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>Col wrote:
>> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
>> news:Awukt.87197$VF3....@fx28.fr7...
>>> Col wrote:
>>>
>>> Who says? If it's society's judgement that it works then that's all
>>> that matters, regardless of how each individual opinion is arrived
>>> at, which can't be determined or scrutinised anyway.
>>>
>>> If the people want it, why shouldn't the people have it?
>>
>> And the public gets what the public wants!
>> The Jam wrote a song about that you know.
>>
>> Fortunately, the public doesn't always get what it wants.
>> A majority might well be in favour of hanging, that doesn't
>> mean we should bring it back.
>
>Why not? Who should decide such matters if not the people? And on what
>basis?

The reason we no longer hang people is that we kept hanging innocents.

Capital punishment is only legitimate if you have an infallible legal
system and an incorruptible police force.

[Norman Wells]

Bill wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 15:33:49 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> Col wrote:
>>> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
>>> news:Awukt.87197$VF3....@fx28.fr7...
>>>> Col wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Who says? If it's society's judgement that it works then that's
>>>> all that matters, regardless of how each individual opinion is
>>>> arrived at, which can't be determined or scrutinised anyway.
>>>>
>>>> If the people want it, why shouldn't the people have it?
>>>
>>> And the public gets what the public wants!
>>> The Jam wrote a song about that you know.
>>>
>>> Fortunately, the public doesn't always get what it wants.
>>> A majority might well be in favour of hanging, that doesn't
>>> mean we should bring it back.
>>
>> Why not? Who should decide such matters if not the people? And on
>> what basis?
>
> The reason we no longer hang people is that we kept hanging innocents.

If the people don't mind that, why shouldn't they have their way? As I
said, but you avoided, who should decide such matters if not the people,
and on what basis?

> Capital punishment is only legitimate if you have an infallible legal
> system and an incorruptible police force.

Well, that's your view. If it's also the will of the people, fine. If
it's not, though, why should your minority view take precedence?

[Bill]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:41:07 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>

wrote:

>Bill wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 15:33:49 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Col wrote:
>>>> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
>>>> news:Awukt.87197$VF3....@fx28.fr7...
>>>>> Col wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Who says? If it's society's judgement that it works then that's
>>>>> all that matters, regardless of how each individual opinion is
>>>>> arrived at, which can't be determined or scrutinised anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the people want it, why shouldn't the people have it?
>>>>
>>>> And the public gets what the public wants!
>>>> The Jam wrote a song about that you know.
>>>>
>>>> Fortunately, the public doesn't always get what it wants.
>>>> A majority might well be in favour of hanging, that doesn't
>>>> mean we should bring it back.
>>>
>>> Why not? Who should decide such matters if not the people? And on
>>> what basis?
>>
>> The reason we no longer hang people is that we kept hanging innocents.
>
>If the people don't mind that, why shouldn't they have their way?

The people who stopped it last time were the lawyers.

Judges find sending people for execution and subsequently discovering
it was a nasty police 'fit up' distressing.

[Norman Wells]

Are judges not the servants of the people, supposed to enforce laws the
people enact?

[Dis Manibus]

"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message

news:eFRkt.42556$tf4....@fx26.fr7...

I don't think the phrase 'The People' means what most of us would like it to
mean. If, indeed, it means anything at all.

[Bill]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 20:49:07 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>

Ah, you're sweet.

[Norman Wells]

Then whom does it mean? And who should decide the laws to be enacted
unless it is the people?

[Norman Wells]

Indeed I am, but this isn't the time or the place.

Stop avoiding the point with flirtatious distraction.

[Bill]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 23:24:22 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>

'The people' do not prosecute people in England.

[Norman Wells]

Is English perhaps not your first language?

[Bill]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 23:25:29 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>

Judges are most certainly NOT the servants of the people.

Judges are appointed by and are the direct representatives of the
crown and impose justice in the name of the monarch.

The law of the land is written by Her Majesty's Ministers and
enforced by the courts.

All the people get to do is vote for their representatives in the
lower legislative chamber now and again and, probably most
importantly, form a jury to decide guilt.

[Bill]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 23:29:35 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>

It most certainly is.

'The Crown' prosecutes people in England.

[Norman Wells]

You're avoiding the point again. Who should decide the laws to be
applied in society unless it is ultimately the people?

Let me give you some alternatives. The Queen? The European Commission?
Unelected bureaucrats? Unelected judges? The Archbishop of Canterbury?
God? Or who?

[Norman Wells]

So, should the legislative chamber be unelected in your view, or should
it be elected to do the will of the people and be removable by the
people if it doesn't?

[Dis Manibus]

"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message

news:OWTkt.79110$G74...@fx13.fr7...

I don't know. It doesn't seem to mean anything that includes me. I
personally think it would be nice if we could collectively decide laws and
punishment, but it seems we can't be trusted to get it right. A bit like our
illusion of democracy.

[Bill]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:04:08 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>

As a general rule it is the legal profession.

'The people' tend to make mistakes in complicated issues and as the
lawyers always say 'Hard cases make bad laws'.

Cases in point are things like 'The Dangerous Dogs Act' which does no
good, makes life complicated and is well hated by everyone involved
in animal welfare.

[Bill]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:08:02 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>

There are two legislative chambers.

One elected, one unelected.

I would prefer both to be elected.

As for 'the will of the people', how do you measure it?

Or will it just be 'The Will of the Daily Mail Leader Writer'?

I'm prepared to trust our elected representatives, even though I have
been somewhat inconvenienced by some laws in recent years and feel
they didn't serve any good purpose and were driven by vested interests
and the press.

[Ophelia]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kaa9p812sostr1b74...@4ax.com...

> Cases in point are things like 'The Dangerous Dogs Act' which does no
> good, makes life complicated and is well hated by everyone involved
> in animal welfare.

Speaking of which ... a dog may not protect his home by biting a burglar???
If I had a burglar I would encourage my dog to attack!

What will they do about guard dogs? Police dogs? Are they to be exempt?


--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[JNugent]

And you can only deter one of those by threatening that he will not be
punished.

[Norman Wells]

Bill wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:04:08 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> Bill wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 23:29:35 +0100, "Norman Wells"
>>> <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Then whom does it mean? And who should decide the laws to be
>>>>>> enacted unless it is the people?
>>>>>
>>>>> 'The people' do not prosecute people in England.
>>>>
>>>> Is English perhaps not your first language?
>>>
>>> It most certainly is.
>>>
>>> 'The Crown' prosecutes people in England.
>>
>> You're avoiding the point again. Who should decide the laws to be
>> applied in society unless it is ultimately the people?
>>
>> Let me give you some alternatives. The Queen? The European
>> Commission? Unelected bureaucrats? Unelected judges? The
>> Archbishop of Canterbury? God? Or who?
>
> As a general rule it is the legal profession.

So, you think _they_ should decide things like whether we have hanging
for murder, VAT, membership of the EU, and immunity from prosecution for
all members of the legal profession, do you?

> 'The people' tend to make mistakes in complicated issues and as the
> lawyers always say 'Hard cases make bad laws'.
>
> Cases in point are things like 'The Dangerous Dogs Act' which does no
> good, makes life complicated and is well hated by everyone involved
> in animal welfare.

Did the legal profession decide that the Dangerous Dogs Act should be
enacted? If it did, it certainly passed me by.

[Norman Wells]

It's whatever is expressed by their duly elected representatives in
Parliament of course.

> Or will it just be 'The Will of the Daily Mail Leader Writer'?
>
> I'm prepared to trust our elected representatives, even though I have
> been somewhat inconvenienced by some laws in recent years and feel
> they didn't serve any good purpose and were driven by vested interests
> and the press.

But you're saying elsewhere it's the legal profession that should decide
the laws to be applied in society. Do make your mind up.

[Bill]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 14:15:23 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>

wrote:

>Bill wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:04:08 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 23:29:35 +0100, "Norman Wells"
>>>> <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Then whom does it mean? And who should decide the laws to be
>>>>>>> enacted unless it is the people?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'The people' do not prosecute people in England.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is English perhaps not your first language?
>>>>
>>>> It most certainly is.
>>>>
>>>> 'The Crown' prosecutes people in England.
>>>
>>> You're avoiding the point again. Who should decide the laws to be
>>> applied in society unless it is ultimately the people?
>>>
>>> Let me give you some alternatives. The Queen? The European
>>> Commission? Unelected bureaucrats? Unelected judges? The
>>> Archbishop of Canterbury? God? Or who?
>>
>> As a general rule it is the legal profession.
>
>So, you think _they_ should decide things like whether we have hanging
>for murder,

Most certainly, they're the ones who have to take the moral
consequences of mistakes are made.

>> 'The people' tend to make mistakes in complicated issues and as the
>> lawyers always say 'Hard cases make bad laws'.
>>
>> Cases in point are things like 'The Dangerous Dogs Act' which does no
>> good, makes life complicated and is well hated by everyone involved
>> in animal welfare.
>
>Did the legal profession decide that the Dangerous Dogs Act should be
>enacted? If it did, it certainly passed me by.

You misunderstand, probably deliberately.

[Bill]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 14:18:39 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>

And which profession is most heavily represented in the Houses of
Parliament?

[Norman Wells]

No they don't. They're unaccountable.

>>> 'The people' tend to make mistakes in complicated issues and as the
>>> lawyers always say 'Hard cases make bad laws'.
>>>
>>> Cases in point are things like 'The Dangerous Dogs Act' which does
>>> no good, makes life complicated and is well hated by everyone
>>> involved in animal welfare.
>>
>> Did the legal profession decide that the Dangerous Dogs Act should be
>> enacted? If it did, it certainly passed me by.
>
> You misunderstand, probably deliberately.

No. I asked you the question "Who should decide the laws to be applied
in society unless it is ultimately the people"? I just took your
answer.

[Bill]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:22:33 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>

Then I'm afraid you're just not bright enough to take part in the
conversation.

[Norman Wells]

That's an inevitable consequence of taking your answer to anything
actually.

[Dry Gulch Pete]

"tim......" <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:avckeo...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Ar" <A...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:51909e06$0$1098$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk...
>> On 13/05/13 08:53, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>> after serving 8 weeks out of 8 months!!
>>>>
>>>> So is his missus!!!
>>>
>>> How much longer do you want to pay for them?
>>
>> Makes no difference, we've been paying for Huhne ever since he became an
>> MP.
>
> we were paying far more when he as was MEP

The EU Gravy Train - grasper!

--
DGP

[Dry Gulch Pete]

"Farmer Giles" <gi...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:A96dnca63rBrbA3M...@brightview.co.uk...

> On 13/05/2013 09:00, Dry Gulch Pete wrote:
>> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message

>> news:B_0kt.43877$jP.3...@fx12.fr7...

>>> Dry Gulch Pete wrote:
>>>
>>>> after serving 8 weeks out of 8 months!!
>>>>
>>>> So is his missus!!!
>>>
>>> How much longer do you want to pay for them?
>>

>> Well, Norman, you and I would have served half of 8 months with one month
>> off for good behaviour, if we behaved - that's 12 weeks!
>
> Nonsense. Everybody would serve half of that 8 months

which makes the sentence a joke - I wonder of they have joke sentences
elsewhere!

>>unless they were
> eligible for HDC - and many aren't, either through their circumstances and
> record, or the offence they have committed. There is absolutely no reason
> why Chris Huhne would not get the maximum time on HDC or Category D, or
> anyone like him - no previous convictions, no record of violence and a
> stable home to be released to.

I stand corrected! :)

--
DGP

[geopelia]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:hrq9p8dhkej3acq2p...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 16 May 2013 14:15:23 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>>Bill wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:04:08 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 23:29:35 +0100, "Norman Wells"
>>>>> <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then whom does it mean? And who should decide the laws to be
>>>>>>>> enacted unless it is the people?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'The people' do not prosecute people in England.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is English perhaps not your first language?
>>>>>
>>>>> It most certainly is.
>>>>>
>>>>> 'The Crown' prosecutes people in England.
>>>>
>>>> You're avoiding the point again. Who should decide the laws to be
>>>> applied in society unless it is ultimately the people?
>>>>
>>>> Let me give you some alternatives. The Queen? The European
>>>> Commission? Unelected bureaucrats? Unelected judges? The
>>>> Archbishop of Canterbury? God? Or who?
>>>
>>> As a general rule it is the legal profession.
>>
>>So, you think _they_ should decide things like whether we have hanging
>>for murder,
>
> Most certainly, they're the ones who have to take the moral
> consequences of mistakes are made.

The Home Secretary used to have the final say.
I haven't heard of one pardoning a murderer though.
Perhaps there should have been a referendum on hanging.

[The Other Mike]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 09:23:17 +0100, "Brian Watson" <Br...@imagebus.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
>news:B_0kt.43877$jP.3...@fx12.fr7...
>> Dry Gulch Pete wrote:
>>
>>> after serving 8 weeks out of 8 months!!
>>>
>>> So is his missus!!!
>>
>> How much longer do you want to pay for them?
>

>On that basis, I suppose you'd ignore all breaches of the law because they
>cost "us" money?
>
>Or maybe you think he should've been shot? That's relatively cheap.

The scummy bent bastard and his lawyers are arguing over the costs to be paid.
In case of any dispute the costs should be increased 1000%

Get the money and then for wasting everyones time shoot him and his lawyers
thereby achieving a result where everyone that matters is satisifed with the
outcome.


--