Verbal

You can score party-apparatchik political points over which party did what until the cows come home - but the idea that a political party caused the current crisis is absurd. The credit crunch that followed collapse of sub-prime eventually impacted on the governments who bailed out the banks, precisely because sovereign debt is raised in the same (and now fatally squeezed) financial markets as sub-prime borrowers.

The current crisis DID start in the US, with the collapse of the sub-prime market which required bank and insurance company bailouts across the US, Britain and elsewhere. The US banks were under no real pressure from the UK to compete in the sub-prime scandal. It was US regulators' policy, under Fed chairman Alan Greenspan, to allow the banks to do, pretty much, whatever they wanted. Greenspan's oversight included the astonishing fact that one key regulator's office was staffed by precisely ONE person!

Can an arseflap actually be pedantic?

It's actually quite a good plan. And it'll help ensure that 1992 will remain for some while the last time the Tories secured an overall majority to govern. Onwards and upwards! as Michael Foot used to say.

They've noticed.

So why do you resort so readily to abuse? And how many times have the 'obvious' criminals turned out to be nothing of the kind. Is the boyfriend innocent, as he claims, of encouraging it? What was the state of mind of the woman at the time of the killing? What's her history? Was the skype recorded? etc etc. But no - for you, it's simple: boil all bunnies. Kill the guilty, the ultimately proven innocent, the mentally incompetent...just KILL!!! and magically everything will be right with the world

But the case hasn't even come to court yet! And your last sentence makes absolutely no sense.

Why don't you cut out the abuse. Andy's point is a good one - entirely missed in your fit of pique.

Still not about revenge then.

I actually don't have a clue what you're talking about. Care to explain?

I hate to break it to you Alps, but your 'feelings' are not as reliable as carefully compiled statistical data.

But why the knee-jerk for the death penalty? You say you're not motivated by revenge, and there's overwhelming evidence that it's not a deterrent. What you've offered is, at best, a useless proposal.

I'm not sure we should bother Andy. Alps is another one of those 'sample of one' hysterics.

And abolish the right of appeal. Absolutely! Make a mistake or a dozen - no matter!

My point is, again, even in places that have the death penalty, there are limitations of mental competence that would probably prevent this case becoming a capital one. You're just plainly wrong if you think this is a general solution.

A mechanical dog that walks like it's desperate for a dump is essential military hardware.

Abolish the death penalty wherever it exists - would be a good start.

The death penalty is not an effective deterrent. In the US, this is in the way of a fact rather than an opinion. States with the death penalty tend to have higher murder rates than those those don't. And this isn't a 'rich/poor' divide - one of the poorest states in the Union, New Mexico, does not have the death penalty and has seen murder rates fall since abolition. On the specifics of the case, I take it you have done extensive psychological testing on the accused - to know for certain that she was mentally all there? It's important, because even in States with the death penalty, you can't execute the mentally incapable or 'retarded' (an official definition once upon a time, based on IQ scores). But I suspect you're thinking along the lines of revenge, whether you admit it or not. And that's not the best of motives for state killing, is it?

Peels of laughter is the one sound I haven't heard so far.

So you think DA's comments didn't 'cause displeasure'?

Her words have spoken more loudly than her actions over the years, Andy. As far as actions are concerned, she has not been a political innovator - she's certainly no Barbara Castle - and so her loss would not be greatly felt. Frankly, if she were such a political force, she'd be more than a shadow junior health minister by now.

Yes. She holds a shadow position in Health. It's a vital part of her job therefore to represent all people equally and fairly, not just the ones she somehow believes don't 'divide and rule'.

I see you're one of those 'sample of one' hysterics.

A bit of an exaggeration, wouldn't you say, Viking? Or has Mr Plod already been round and given you a clip round the ear for this post?

For timing alone, Abbott committed a worse offence than flinging off a casual racist remark: she allowed her narcissism and hubris to get in the way of a far more important event - the conviction and sentencing of two of Stephen Lawrence's murderers. Just a day after sentencing, the fact that everyone is talking about Abbott is a travesty.