benjii

Indeed, but morally what's the difference? Using the information is a form of moral endorsement. By acting on that information you are clearly adducing the value judgment that torture, in that case, is better than no torture. Unless you would have preferred for no torture to have happened and the attack to have gone ahead, which is the consequence of your second statement.

I think you'll be safe in London, unless it chooses to drive along the M4.

It's inherently political. It is an act of meek surrender to the power-mongers who start these things in the first place.

On that simple logic then no doubt we will be invading China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Burma, Sudan, Nigeria, Iran etc.... soon and you will support all those offensives?

If I get really bored I suppose it's an option. There's a Tesco Express next door but their fresh produce stock leaves a lot to be desired. Will probably just make-do with the typical internet trawl and pump.

I thought the first episode was self-indulgent and a wee bit smug but last night's was much better and had me laughing on several occasions. If those waiting staff at L'Enclume were all genuine then that makes it all the funnier.

While we're on the subject, I would smash Chloe O'Brien from 24 too.

She just said "anal". I've gone a bit firm.

No, no. This is all above board. Chanrai's previous connections with the Gaydamaks are just a coincidence.

Again? ****ing hell. I was worried that the first time had been what had led to her possibly being ruined. I still would though. She has the allure of a nubile teen, even if she is getting slack.

Racial? Really? There are probably quite a few people in England with similar feelings. The Iraq war is ****ing disgusting and the Afghan war is utterly futile. If you wear a red poppy then by implication you are supporting that whether you like it or not IMO. You can't just say "it's about the soldiers". That is facile and ignorant. Any ostentatious statement is political.

She has been a long-term favourite of mine. That French maid outfit on that Saturday morning show she used to be on always provided me with plenty of early-morning exercise ammunition. I am worried that she might be going downhill a bit although she is still a bit of a fox. Does anyone think Phil Schofield may have given her a ruining?

Well, that's clearly an example of failure but there's a lacuna between that one fact and an axiomatic dismissal of the practice. Anyway, I tought it was made up by a work-experience lad, not obtained by torture?

The Post Office certainly is torture. I had to go to Shirley post office first thing on a Monday morning a few weeks ago and it smelt of wee. It was only made bearable by the fact that I was there to get a load of Croatian Kuna and bugger off to the sun for a few weeks! Bexy - fair enough, if that's what the research shows then I shall not argue. However.... Let's say you are in charge of managing London's infrastructure. You receive information from a very trusted and reliable source telling you that there is going to be some sort of attack this morning and you have the power to take action to limit the consequences of that attack. You know that the information given to you was obtained by torture but you also know that the source of the information has a history of obtaining good results. What do you do?

You can't just divest yourself of assets if you owe serious money to commercial lenders. The money owed must've been owed to the shareholders/directors surely, or else the lenders must have accepted a compromise of some sorts? I'm speaking from a position of complete ignorance about Charlton and who their creditors are but, generally speaking, you can't legitimately escape debts by squirelling assets away from creditors.

Generally, I agree but some BBC articles are absolutely strewn with misunderstandings when they are covering something technical.

Indeed. I suppose if the club genuinely thought it could cause some sort of serious disorder than a banning might be a legitimate response but I think we are losing the ability to be offended in this country. There is nothing wrong with being outraged occasionally. Not every affront demands a reactionary response.

Indeed. There is no way of being certain as to how effective it is unless you do it and measure the results. But BTF, if you need to degrade yourself to save others is that not in some ways heroic?

TBF, it will probably be fairly tired and cliched but entertaining all the same. Good line-up with Channon, LMc, MLT, Keegan etc.

A dose of healthy cynism is certainly not a bad call.

Let's dig a bit deeper: To the "no" brigade - if you have someone in custody with knowledge of an impending attack that will take many lives indiscriminately and the only way of getting that knowledge is by applying some fairly extreme physical/mental pressure how could you justify not doing it?

These are good posts.

Apparently he was the first singer of the Twelve Days of Cantona. "And an Errrriiiiicccccc Cannnntooonaaa".

Aye. I am bemused by the constant craving for positive PR that some posters seem to have. It's weird. Probably the sort of numpties who spew forth their unrelenting verbal bile over such idiot-banks as Facebook and Twitter. "Just saw someone from Hollyoaks in a lift" "Excited about my upcoming amazing holiday" "I have the best life ever" etc.

Is it ever justified?