aintforever

I thought he looked good, apart from the off-sides.

You are right about the way to combat it - totally. The measures you state above are way more likley to happen if groups like the EDL make the government stand up and take notice. EDL are not going to root out the Extremists themselves, they are never going to be a major political party that can change things themselves. Their job is to put the issue on the agenda, make the government realize the problem and act on it - mostly in the way you say.

that's where peoples views differ. Justice is about fairness. If someone in my family was murdered I don't think it fair that the person who did it spends 15 years playing playstation, and be fed and kept at my expense only to leave and live a normal life when every connected to the victim has to suffer their whole life. Capital punishment is not nice, but it is a hell of a lot nicer than what murderers do to their victims. Its harsh but totally fair. Retribution and evening the score would be to torture them and kill them in the same way they did.

Why does it matter if it's a deterrent or not, it's about justice.

Didin't see how it started but from what I saw the Yeovil mob were just as up for it as the Saints lot. All a bit pathetic.

It's pretty clear to me that it's extremists they oppose... "We are a non racist and non discriminatory protest group who believe in an integrated and peaceful Britain with one law and one society, respected by all of its members. The EDL will continue to peacefully protest and highlight the issue of unrestrained Islamic extremism in the UK, unless and until the government take concerted action against those who preach hatred and wish to harm the people of this country." Obviously their cause attracts BNP nutters but it's a sound cause IMO.

I fail to see what is wrong in opposing militant Islam, obviously alot of BNP ass holes turn up a the demos but that doesn't mean their cause is wrong.

Insults aside, you fail to answer any of my points about about some convictions being safer than others and how the death penalty could easily be introduced for those cases where there is no possible doubt of guilt.

Are you 12 years old or just completely stupid? All those people you mentioned were found guilty beyond REASONABLE doubt, get that REASONABLE - look it up in a dictionary. Reasonable is different to no doubt, let me illustrate for your tiny little brain. Man 1 is found guilty of murder on the basis of a couple of Police eye witness statements, the gun was found at his house which matched the bullet and police found gunpowder fragments on his clothes and body, plus he had a motive. He is rightly convicted as it is beyond reasonable doubt despite him claiming a stitch up. Man 2 is caught clearly on CCTV shooting someone in the face, he is immediately caught at the scene by Police in full view of numerous witnesses, with the gun in his hand. He admits the crime. There is no doubt man 2 did the crime, man 1, though guilty, in theory could have been the victim of an elaborate plan so wouldn't hang. Is that clear enough for you?

You must be thick if you don't understand the difference between reasonable doubt and no doubt. Some court cases are open and shut with overwhelming evidence, others hinge on the odd bit of forensics or an eyewitness testimony etc.

I'm not reason my argument because the Lowe debate has been done to death and you have been proved wrong too many times to mention. It's just boring now and I cannot be arsed. My point was that I don't even think that you believe the rubbish you come out with, you are just on the wind up. Continual wind ups like yours ruin this message board.

Looked to me like they were exercising their right to free speech and a counter demonstration confronted them and it kicked-off. You have to wonder about who would be so opposed to a protest against terrorists?

Why do you think the Asian population are so shy in coming forward with their opinions? Virtually all asians I know are openly anti-sematic and anti-american, being Pakistani they also hate Indians. From my experience their racism is not even taboo in the slightest.

Defence League is pretty accurate considering they are against Muslim Extremeists, who consider themselves at war with you and me.

I think you've illustrated the problem, you associate the word English with racist - that is wrong. It's just like you can have the Music of Black Origin awards but if you tried to set up a White Music awards you would get hounded out of town. There is no doubt these marches attract BNP nutters, but you cannot say that what the cause stands for is wrong.

Does anyone else think this Nineteen Canteen nutjob should just be banned? No true Saints fan could possibly compare Lowe to Lawrie Mac, one got us relegated twice and sent the club into administration and the other won our only trophy and basically put us on the map. This bell end is just on a wind up, mods do us all a favour and kick him off here.

It is important that people should be able to openly speak out and demonstrate against Muslim extremists without being labeled as racist.

But surely every single crime is subject judicial interpretation and there are never specific lines as each crime has different circumstances. Remember it's not the guilt which is in question it's just the level of sentencing which is always down to the judges judgement. The 'Murder 1' & 'Murder 2' distinction shows clearly how this could work. The "without ANY doubt" bit is the hard thing but there is no reason why a team of judges couldn't study the evidence and make sure a conviction is safe to procede with capital punishment. It would mean alot of murderers would only get life but could mean proper justice is handed out to some of those who deserve it.

I disagree, like in the Fred West case you had bodys under the house, a wife who said he did it, other witnesses who said he attacked/abused them and a tape recording of someone being murdered. Even allowing for human error there is no doubt of his guilt, and there are other similar cases. I'm not saying all muderers should be hung, only when it is a really depraved and cold blooded and where the case is open and shut.

Do I really have to explain to difference between NO doubt and REASONABLE doubt?! Blimey, is this place full of 12 year olds or something?

Not really, Lawrie Mac is a legend, I couldn't care less if has any particular personality flaw in his old age - it doesn't matter and unless he's dogged your missus it shouldn't matter to you IMO.

Head in fridge, semen on corpse sort of stuff. This is going round in circles.

Confessions from mental people would not be enough to get through my panel of death judges, would need other smoking gun evidence. You have to admit that although there are sometimes innocent people convicted there are also some cases which are free from any doubt of guilt?

Someone is convicted if it is beyond REASONABLE doubt, it would not be hard to have a secondary court that decides if the conviction is free from ANY doubt. For example there is obviously a difference if a conviction relies upon an eye witness statement and a few bits of circumstantial evidence, and a bit of forensics, than if someone is caught on CCTV raping and murdering someone. Or in Fred West's case, if he has several bodies buried under his house and there is a recording of him torturing someone. You just need a team of judges to decide if a death penalty is safe.

Dunno, I'm not familiar with the case. There are cases where guilt is beyond doubt like West, Huntley, Shipman etc. Only when this is the case should the death penalty be used.