benjii

Off the line! A mighty 18,000+ today though so fair play, the giant is awakening.

Yeah, in theory it could be great but if Mellis, Mills and Lallana don't work out what they need to do and when it could be a pretty dire afternoon. Will also be important for Hammond to get up and help out Lambert IMO to give the three mentioned above a platform to play from.

As no Mod appears arsed to make a match sticky thread.... ------------------KD------------ James----Trotsky----Jaidi-----Harding Mellis---SPiderspvigs----Hammond----Mills -------------Lallana------------ -------------Lambert-----------

Yes, indeed. What a tedious old drone.

I agree. An Alan Ball stand would be perfectly apt and sensible. Much better than naming a stand after some ****-hole part of town.

Has the Barcelona reconnaisance mission finished yet?

FFS.

Yes, EXACTLY. So how do you draw up the legal test to make sure that people like the Dando suspect are not murdered by the state? You either make the threshold so high that it is hardly ever used or you engender a situation where every conviction is followed by a further mini-trial dealing with the level of "doubt" and where some people will fall the wrong side of the line incorrectly. It comepletely flies in the face of the prevailing legal system of the country where no reasonable doubt is supposed to remain in any case.

Well, I had a sense of certainty from the media reports and the fact that there was no suggestion that the conviction was unsound. Obviously, it would be up to the judge and/or jury to make the call having sat thorugh the trial. But let's say that it is one case where you could be pretty sure you're murdering the right person if you execute him. But how do you formalise it? That is my point. Yes there are some obvious cases. But we're talking about the law. You need a test. What is it and how do you escape from the fact that wherever you draw the line there will be cases on the edge of it.

I like the look of that - we have the quality to play an attacking set up.

You "no doubters" as I shall call you really don't understand the practical difficulties of your position. I'll ask again: what test determines "no doubt" (and don't answer by giving a ridiculous example where everyone in the world saw the crime being committed)? Give an answer which deals satisfactorily with cases on the boundary between "no doubt" (as the prosecution and victims family are arguing) and "some doubt" (which the defence is arguing). Bear in mind that any murder conviction involves the jury having decided, beyond reasonable doubt, that the murderer killed someone, having intended to cause them death or serious harm. In 90% of cases there will be some shades of grey or doubt and in every one of those there will be a fierce debate between the crown and the defence. Bear in mind also that if the defence establishes "some doubt" then was the original conviction of "beyond reasonable doubt" sound? Isn't there a contradiction there? There will hardly be any cases where the death penalty will end up being used in these circumstances and, even if one accepted for the sake of argument that the death penalty could in principle be a valid deterrant, the whole thing will be a massive waste of time with absolutely no benefit whatsover other than satisfying some primitve notion of "justice" or "retribution".

Good, bet won.

Think I'm gonna do a fiver on Lambert to score twice (or more) at 13/2. Used to do scorecasts all the time in the Prem as you knew if we won it would probably be 1-0, 2-0 or 2-1 and Beattie would be the first scorer. It's very hard to predict scores now though. I wouldn't be surprised if we won 5-0 and I wouldn't be surprised if we scraped a 1-0.

It was just a case of hypnosis. If you want to be hypnotised you probably will be, if you resist it you probably won't be. I'm not sure what the point of this series is so far as it's been a massive pile of ****. I'm hoping there will be some sort of final trick at the end that ties everything to together in some brilliant way.... not confident though!

Exactly.

So, I refer you to point 2 which is this: How do you formulate a reliable, 100% test for when there is "no doubt"? You can't, at the end of the day someone will have to make a call and sooner or later they will make the wrong one. PS. In any case, this section of the debate is purely about the practical application of a death penalty in the most just way. It doesn't even touch on the correct point raised by Bungle, above.

No, I couldn't afford to. I'm surprised if you think that is what I was saying. Neither could I finance a fat, lazy slob through their benefit career but I would rather contribute to the former. I think it is a perfectly valid use of my tax money and that to include financial grounds as a factor when deciding on whether people should be murdered or not is rather disgusting and facile.

Race riots are pretty pasé to be honest but I can see them making a come back over the next decade.

Good point! Gold star for Harvey. Can't believe no one thought of that.

People who say, "I support it when there is no doubt of guilt" are completely missing two important points: 1) Anyone convicted of a crime has been proven to have committed that crime "beyond reasonable doubt". This is a high threshold. It doesn't make sense to say that some are more guilty than others. By definition, to doubt their guilt is supposed to be unreasonable (but we know in practice the system does not always work). 2) Regardless of the above, what is the test for determining whether there is "no doubt" of guilt? However you frame the test, wherever you draw the line, there will be shades of grey. Innocent people will be murdered. And as to the "it would be cheaper to kill them".... great argument. Nice one. Dozey pillocks. Personally, I would rather pay for a murderer to be locked up for life than pay for a lazy, idler to sit on their fat arse and watch Jerry Springer all day at home (at least the incarceration has an obvious purpose). I don't think I should be able to remedy this by murdering them though.

Great post!

I am there now. I don't want to share a car though. But thanks for the offer.

Absolutely. The stunts he does are exactly that. The street magic is ****ing brilliant though. He is awesome.

No, I was suggesting the OP must have been bored to start it!

This is a really good site. The quality of the streams has improved a lot recently. For a match like Saints - Charlton which no one will watch it should be excellent.