nrogers

Nice work labour... they could have protected the UK better, but they have failed in the economy, as they have failed in crime, health, education and unemployment...

you know what Snowy I would because I knwo how vital blood supplies are

and for that I would opt in as well

What a load of shit... you are demanding that the government can take blood unless you say no... your values are **** up!

It would be very interesting to see if the anti-death penalty voters would change their opinion if it was their child or loved one that was killed by some serial offender?

It would also be interesting to see if the pro-death pentalty voters would change their opinion if they were the ones on the unfortunate end of a miscarriage of justice.

I don't disagree which is a exactly why I am on the fence, until a flawless judicial system can be created, it's isn't feasible, either morally or sanely.

Well it's seems that the wronged do make the judgements, if not how on earth to peopel that owe money get more time than violent criminals, in certain cases?

I don't have a system, I really don't, but IF a flawless system could be found then the death penalty could be a punishment, albeit a final one for the extremely unrepentant and especially violent criminals... I know it's an easy way out for the criminal, but why should the innocent have to pay to support said criminal for a potential 60 - 80 years in prison, surely that penalising the innocent?

First it's this, you know, your dead who cares, then Soylent Green, well it's wastful, all that meat, their dead... lets resell, then perhaps Logan's Run, if people live over thirty, the meat gets all stringy and you a bit tough to eat... Government knows best.

dear me, talk about posting for effect ...

so Nick do I presume if you needed a transplant in the future for you and your family, say your biy got unforntalty sick you would refuse it ?

Again, totally missed the point, and why should I be surprised.

You must have missed where I said I was a card carrying donor. I think paraphrasing Prescilla White would be logical here.

So what method would you advocates use? There are those saying they would chop off their heads (I note no response to my question as to whether that was a serious point of not), some who would shoot them in the face at point blank range, some who would use electricity. And on what grounds do you make your decision on how to kill a human being?

I don't have a method, I don't have the answers, the point is that the system is inherently flawed if one innocent person goes to jail for more than a minute... if there were a system that were flawless I wouldn't have a problem with the Death Penalty.

but this moral highground nonsense is getting on my tits.

You obviously need to lose weight then if you have moobies

My Muscles are so large they look like tits

Can you imaging how angry an innocent person would be after serving numerous years for a crime they didn't commit? It's enough to turn you to crime, which states to me the current Court system is ineffectual as innocent people are convicted time after time... sort that and you sort the death penalty issue, surely?

They system fails and some innocent people do get convicted for crimes they didn't commit. To kill them would be irreversable.

And how exactly would you give them the years back that they served?

Or preventing the reoccurrance of a violent crime, and preventing the population from feeding, housing and clothing a violent criminal for oh 6 or 7 years before he is free to roam the street again and reoffend... Apparently it's a mental illness..

None of the above states whether I am for or against the death penalty as I am on the fence with this one... but this moral highground nonsense is getting on my tits.

First it's this, you know, your dead who cares, then Soylent Green, well it's wastful, all that meat, their dead... lets resell, then perhaps Logan's Run, if people live over thirty, the meat gets all stringy and you a bit tough to eat... Government knows best.

If Paddys article there is anything to go by, the presumed consent is at the will of the relatives. If they say no when you hop the twig, you're out.

But that certainly wouldn't lead to less people doing it than do currently.

And as the article says, it wouldn't necessarily make any more either.

And leading on from that, it mya have something to do with, as I suggested, not many people are actually want to donate and when asked, said they'd opt out.

But that certainly wouldn't lead to less people doing it than do currently.

And as the article says, it wouldn't necessarily make any more either.

No. But logic would suggest that it would probably increase, even if not by much.

For example, under presumed consent somebody would get my organs. At the moment, nobody would.

So chalk up one extra as a bare minimum.

And chalk up one less as I would opt out. Evens

I don't think I can add any more than Chindie, who has got is bang on the money IMO.

It's not broken, don't fix it, what next, Soilent Green?

I do opt in, but if it were forced unpon me I would opt out on principle.

I use pepper spray as Lube... :wink:

Saag Aloo as a side, with most Curries.

Joy Division - Disorder

Goldenhorse - Northern Lights

The opposite end from the hitting bit of the hammer is called the peen.

Only for the Ball Peen Hammer, this isn't the case for a claw hammer, a framing hammer, a geologists hammer or a lump hammer. Sorry...

How times have changed, and there were no arguements about it then either.

34.