aintforever

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.

Yes but there is a difference between "reasonable doubt" and NO doubt. If someone is caught red handed or is obviously guilty beyond any doubt, and has committed sick crimes that would mean they would probably never be released - then they should be killed IMO.

No sympathy for the guy at all, deserves all he gets. I think the death penalty is a good idea, but only in extreme cases, mass murderers etc and where there is no doubt at all of guilt. I just cannot see the point of spending a fortune keeping someone like Myra Hindley inside for their whole life, they are worthless so should just be done away with. I don't think it's important if it doesn't act as a deterant, or if the person can be rehabilitated, it's about justice - criminals getting what they deserve and the victims getting what they deserve.

Yeah, there's one big camp full of true Saints fans and there's a two man tent with Dibden Purlieu Saint and Nineteen Canteen spooning in front of shrine of Rupert Lowe.

Is it me or are the PL bringing in these new rules just in time to stitch up the Skates? The new stricter Fit and Proper Person Test was brought in the nick of time to stop Taksin's dirty money buying pompey. Now they are bringing in tough financial rules at a time when pompey appear to be up against it. It wouldn't surprise me if the PL are ****ed off about how Gaydamak used his son to get round the original FPP rules - it can't be good to have a gun-runner connected to your league when you are trying to market it as the best to a worldwide audience. Especially when the club in question doesn't have a proper ground.

It's because there is a chance Papa might be good - the alternatives we know are ****.

That is well funny, this season is the first time in years they have something close to a sustainable wage bill and they just cannot handle it. We had 27 years living within our means in the top flight, a large part of that having our best players sold by nobhead chairmen, 5 mins of the same and they are deserting in droves and protesting! I don't know what they hope to achieve by protesting, if there was anyone else interested in buying the club (unlikley), they would run a mile looking at that mess.