[Archived] Hang Em High

[thenodrog]

Crikey I don't know how you can be bothered smithy. Colins not worth passing the time of day with never mind all that.

You need to take note of how Den and I sort each other out! Straight to the point, quicker and much more civilised.

[leftfooter]

Keep up the posts AESF.

You're an easy target because you're honest and care. Not a good combination amongst some of the snivelling semi-literate boorish types that are always lining up to have a pop at you - without censure.

[ABBEY]

i get banned for farting hahaha

[1864roverite]

Thats because they stink Abbey

If it was simple wind you would be okay

[Paul]

Possibly Paul. But then I wouldn't laugh at somebody whom I haven't even met, that just died of cancer.

No and neither would I. What amused me, as I said, was blue phil's remark that we should cut the formalities and go straight to the jokes. That is very good humour, directed at us rather than Jade Goody. Something which phil confirmed himself. Shame you have to explain a joke because it loses a lot, but there you go. He then made a rather poor joke about East Anglia. If you look back I haven't expressed an opinion of Jade Goody other than to say I know nothing of her apart from her appearance on Big Brother. Please read carefully, then you won't misinterpret.

[jim mk2]

Jake Fahir, above, threw a glass dish in a bakery at 16-year-old Jimmy Mizen, who bled to death when the vessels in his neck were severed.

etc etc etc

Anti-Smiths Euro Fan in full rant mode. A magnificent sight.

For an abridge version of his diatribe see today's Daily Mail.

[American]

Smithy, if I weren't already happily married, I'd propose!

Easily the post of the year.

[1864roverite]

I think you have to agree Jimbo, Smithy certainly makes his point.

Most of what he says is valid and is his point of view. If you dont agree with him he shouldnt be abused or castigated for it. the world would be a far better place if people aired their views instead of hiding behind political correctness and all that ######.

I would go along with his post as not being diatribe but more of a view of a decent person and I dont even know him.

[thenodrog]

Anti-Smiths Euro Fan in full rant mode. A magnificent sight.

For an abridge version of his diatribe see today's Daily Mail.

The fact that you are so flippant does you no favours. Obviously close family relationships hold little meaning to you. Tell you what try to imagine that instead of a child of yours that was murdered for no reason that the Mallard or the Flying Scot had been cut up for scrap by gypsies. Who knows it might just add a bit of gravity and depth to your outlook.

[colin]

Hardly Colon....... not one of those has found reason to complain. Just you. Which puts you down imo as a grade 1 sh1t stirrer. Goodnight.

I commented that you insulted other posters not that they complained about it. Can you see the difference?

You may wish to add to the insults, that you descibed me as "grade 1 sh1t stirrer" As you preceded that with "imo." I'm not at all insulted.

You did the "Colon" thing again. Well done Oscar Wilde.

[thenodrog]

You did the "Colon" thing again. Well done Oscar Wilde.

Yeah sorry bout that. You must be aware that it was a genuine mistake. 'I' is next to 'O' and I've big hands. By the time I noticed the edit facility had disappeared too so I'm afraid you'll just have to put up with it.

No matter how big anybody's fingers are though I'm amazed how you managed to type thenodrog and it came out as Oscar Wilde. Now that I've pointed it out you wouldn't like to correct it would you?

[blue phil]

I commented that you insulted other posters not that they complained about it. Can you see the difference?

You may wish to add to the insults, that you descibed me as "grade 1 sh1t stirrer" As you preceded that with "imo." I'm not at all insulted.

You did the "Colon" thing again. Well done Oscar Wilde.

That's all very well , Col ..............but where's your in depth reply to Smithy's demolishing of what's left of your reputation ?

[blue phil]

It ensures you the right to a fair trial. Though I presume you've earned this?

"It" (being the Human Right's Act) may very well ensure a person to a fair trial .

But I'm surprised that someone who works in the legal profession didn't realise that this privelege has already existed for centuries - and in no nation on Earth to a greater degree than Britain .

The HR Act simply muddies the waters and creates new opportunties for lawyers to find loopholes to serve their purposes . And that purpose is often to help criminals evade responsibility .

We already have perfectly good laws - all they need is some politicians and judges with the balls to back them up .

[blue phil]

If death is the harshest punishment and imprisonment the soft option, why did Fred West hang himself? The sick **** escaped justice in my book, he took the soft way out. Why has Ian Brady been on hunger strike if he has a cushty life?

Lock them up, throw away the key, let them rot.

To kill someone because they themselves are murderers is to show them they did wrong by killing them. There's no logic to it.

The sad fact remains that you can punish someone however you like, it doesn't remove the crime they committed. Although locking them in a cell with two muscular in-mates armed with pliers and carvi9ng knives would be a good start.

I'm no soft-touch, but baying for blood is not the answer.

Classic , Bryan !!

You dislike "baying for blood " and for that reason disaprove of capital punishment .

However , sticking someone in a cell and leaving them to be tortured with knives and pliers every day for , perhaps , fifty years , is fine and dandy .

Sometimes I think I'm becoming a little too liberal when I call for a fair trial followed by (if guilty) a private , quick and painless death for perpetrators of the worst forms of murder .

[broadsword]

Hmmm, yes, an apparent contradiction there. I must've had two cups of coffee yesterday.

The locking up for life bit can be state-sanctioned, the pliars and knives bit is perhaps a tad OTT. A good kicking every so often, instead, then?

[colin]

Yeah sorry bout that. You must be aware that it was a genuine mistake. 'I' is next to 'O' and I've big hands. By the time I noticed the edit facility had disappeared too so I'm afraid you'll just have to put up with it.

No matter how big anybody's fingers are though I'm amazed how you managed to type thenodrog and it came out as Oscar Wilde. Now that I've pointed it out you wouldn't like to correct it would you?

Watch it mate, there's a sense of humour creeping in there.

Cheers

[colin]

Smithy,

I've just read your post. What can I say? I am humbled by your research & committment.

Absolutely magnificent!

It must have taken you ages to compile that. Well done.

More info for you:

My waist measurement is 32" (on a good thin day) as is my inside leg. I'm a Capricorn. I don't like parsnips.

Apart from that info... take it easy mate. It's only an unofficial Rovers' web site, so no need to get uptight.

I'm not the only idiot on here, there are plenty of others. You're one of them..

Cheers

Colin

[Rovermatt]

"It" (being the Human Right's Act) may very well ensure a person to a fair trial .

But I'm surprised that someone who works in the legal profession didn't realise that this privelege has already existed for centuries - and in no nation on Earth to a greater degree than Britain .

The privelege existed yes, but was it ever codified?

[SouthAussieRover]

You can feel the love on this thread.

[gillibrand]

It would be better if people who are offended by ASEF's eloquent reply or statements could do the same rather than a sidey one liner in response!

[Rovermatt]

From a poster who often contributes nothing beyond one line.

In my opinion, jokes about people who have been the victims of brutal, cruel crimes are rarely funny. I don't find any of these Jade Goody ones floating around particularly tasteful either but they do send up the hysteria generated by her passing.

[gillibrand]

From a poster who often contributes nothing beyond one line.

In my opinion, jokes about people who have been the victims of brutal, cruel crimes are rarely funny. I don't find any of these Jade Goody ones floating around particularly tasteful either but they do send up the hysteria generated by her passing.

I am sure you will find my one lines as you call them are usually meaningful and not sly back handed comments.

[leftfooter]

The privelege existed yes, but was it ever codified?

So if the privilege already existed, why did it require Nu Labski to codify it? And why do you assume that is such a good thing?

In any case, the idea of a codified right is a fallacy. By defining a right, one is perforce delineating its parameters. By drafting in to law a latter day form of the Napoleanic civil code this Government has embarked on an unprecedented grab for coercive State powers. It is doing what all unchecked Government's eventually seek to do; control how we behave.

Whilst everything we do is scrutinised and examined by ever more intrusive arms of government, the HRA on the other hand has been a boon for corrupt politicians and business leaders who now run for cover under the 'right' to privacy whenever they are at risk of public exposure.

Ancient common law liberties, once unquestionable, must now compete in the market place of human rights. For every right there is a designation, within strict confines. The devolution of those rights away from Parliament to unelected judges has served to undermine our democratic foundations and encourage an unprecendeted wave of judicial activism.

Unlike France or the U.S. however, which have written constitutions and whose judiciary are used to operate, our common law heritage means that our judiciary is profoundly ill equipped to handle such an onerous burden. It has thus allowed all manner of shady human rights lawyers and undesirables to use the HRA as a shield under which to protect themselves.

I've argued previously that the so called HRA and the codification of rights has actually undermined the fundamental principle of English common law and the unique principle of liberty it enshrined. That is of course - that unless it was expressly forbidden by law, everything was permissable. This ancient/modern symmetry of being policed and governed by consent, has been swept away. It's as if Napoleon had successfully invaded England after Waterloo and imposed Emperor's rule and we are now - 200 years later - living with the historical consequences.

What I find difficult to understand is why you unquestioningly appear to accept this. Do you not agree that it is the duty of all citizens to obey the law? If the answer is yes, why do you believe it has been a good thing to have our rights & now our responsibilities codified by the State - as if the law is an on the spot negotiable bargain?

[Rovermatt]

So if the privilege already existed, why did it require Nu Labski to codify it? And why do you assume that is such a good thing?

No law against encroaching on the right.

[leftfooter]

No law against encroaching on the right.

Wow. Remind me to give you a call if I ever need an advocate.