badgerx16

Papa warming up

BBC live match stats has it at 8-9 to Saints

FM Radio, ( I'm a lot closer than you )

Afternoon chaps, just got settled in with Radio Cumbria's commentary, so hope I don't jinx the lads. COYR !!!

It's a jungle out there.

Have you worked out which model of PC / motherboard it is yet ?

This is, predictably, from the Daily Mail, and is NOT a proposal from the Government..... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214856/Motorists-blamed-accidents-cyclists-fault--says-Government-advisor.html Read the last line of the article : "'Cycling England has proposed it, but it is not something that is being considered by ministers.'" Plus some interesting comments in the discussion underneath the main piece.

Is this any help ? http://chains-log.co.uk/?p=958

Maybe he's got joint nationality with North Korea ?

The towers collapsed at 10:00 & 10:28 local time, add 5 hours on for UK time, I think it equates to 22:00 in Perth.. Some interesting reading about 09/11 on this site http://www.911timeline.net/

In which case it's an unwanted immigrant, pushing the indigenous Red Squirrels out of their natural environment and taking the prime accommodation on the Common and in Hyde Park, etc. Bl00dy Yanks, overfed, overweight, and over here ! Where are the immigration and border controls when we need them ?

Why is it fashionable for EastEnders actresses to snort it, but not some teenager from Moss Side or Haringey ? The media is full of fawning over Kate Moss & Pete Docherty - yet they are nothing more than junkies burning cash on illegal drugs, and their "habit" is funding violence in this country, and the organised crime lords in charge of the Colombian trafficking gangs. Cocaine is addictive and destructive, and the media should present a consistent 'message'.

If the system, and the people involved in it, were perfect, then you might have a point; but it isn't, and nor are they. Try reading the article here, maybe you will have a damascene moment http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:11E7EyPoYAoJ:truenorth-armagh.blogspot.com/2009/09/better-that-one-hundred-guilty-men-go.html+better+bad+men+go+free+than+innocent&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Define, in legal terms, 'the purest of evil'. What test has to be made ? How does that test get written down such that lawyers and judges understand it, and such that it can be robustly challenged on appeal. What if you get a case, as with the Teresa de Simone and Lesley Mulseed murders, or the Guildford & Birmingham pub bombers, where, on the balance of the evidence submitted to the courts, it is quite clear that the perpetrators have been found guilty of 'foul' or 'depraved' crimes, and there may well even be accompanying calls for the death penalty to be re-instated, ( as happened with the Mulseed case ). Such a case would probably come close to 'passing' your test. Problem is, with all those cases, evidence was either suppressed, altered, or fabricated. How does your 'test' ensure that ALL the relevant evidence is brought to light at the trial, and not up to 27 years later ? ( Which presumably would be about 26 years too late to save the innocent convict ).

It happened the year after I moved up here, and as it was only on the local ( South Today, Echo, etc ) news, I never became acquainted with the case at the time. The main local miscarriage up here was Stephan Kisko, who was convicted of the murder of Lesley Mulseed, but eventually released after 16 years inside, when three of the prosecution witnesses, teenage girls at the time of the trial, admitted they had 'lied for a laugh'. Also, there had been forensic evidence available before the trial that proved he could not have been the killer, but the West Yorkshire Police failed to reveal this to the defence lawyers.

If you read back through my entries on this thread, I think you will get an understanding of why I think the concept you propose is flawed. The principal problems are (1) how to LEGALLY DEFINE what '100% certainty' actually means. Remember, it is not something in the 'look and feel' of the case or the evidence, it has to be something defined in Law, written in Statute, and tested in court by lawyers and judges. and (2) any system involving Human decisions is prone to Human frailties, ( even Judges make mistakes ), so IMO, better to err on the side of caution. Just to be clear, there are absolutely no circumstances under which I would ever accept the application of the death penalty. What happens in other jurisdictions is not at issue, in this country we are better off without it. End of. ( Please note, you are perfectly at liberty to hold an alternative view, I won't hold it against you nor think any the less of you ) As a last point, why is the per-capita murder rate in the USofA more than 3 times higher than in this country, yet they HAVE the deterrence of the 'final solution' ?

Perhaps if the Police had investigated the case properly, his 'Walter Mitty' story would have been exposed at the time, and the real perpetrator tracked down.

If you want to hide your insecurities and lack of intellect behind insults fine, but try to understand the written form of the English language. This is a debate, there are, in reality, more than simply two perspectives to it. And you, my 'friend', are not necessarily right. I hate to point that out, and no doubt it comes as a shock, but try to grow up sufficiently to accept the truth of the situation.

By the logic of some on here we should have been burning all the Catholic churches down, because one or two extremists happened at some point in their lives to have attended mass. As was pointed out on the election threads earlier in the year, during the discussions around the BNP, defining something as ENGLISH, as in the 'English Defence League', is a bit like calling a mongrel dog a ****er Spaniel; English comes from the Angles, who themselves originated from Denmark & northern Germany. If England is for the English, what happens to the Welsh, the Scots, or the Irish who are resident in the country ? How 'English' is English ? Will you have to prove the purity of your blood line ? Who exactly are the English Defence League defending ?

Maybe you might be able to understand the concept of somebody being mentally ill. Calling disabled people 'idiot' isn't really helpful.

On the scale of 1 to 100 then, given that 100 is totally without any possibility of doubt, where does the line get drawn, before which you are innocent ? Surely everybody in jail should be 100% guilty ? What if you were 97% guilty, do you still get sent down ?, or 90 % ?, or 85%. Does the jury come back with 'Your Honour, we find the accused 78% guilty as charged", in response to which the Judge give 78% of the standard tarrif jail term. Sean Hodgson was found 100% guilty of the murder of Teresa De Simone, in Southampton. He served 27 years in jail and was only released when a DNA sample was taken from the exhumed body of another man who had confessed to the crime, and the sample matched what was taken at the scene. What percentage of guilt applied to the Birmingham and Guildford pub bombers ? Was Paul Hill only 93% guilty of blowing people up ? ( When in fact he was 100% innocent ! ).

Surely the question that has to be asked is, if the 'protesters' were inciting hatred, or committing treason, or whatever else they might be accused of; why were they not arrested and charged ? There were plenty of Old Bill on hand, and surely some senior officer at the scene should have been able to judge whether their 'freedom of speech' crossed the line ? Notwithstanding that, we all saw the pictures on the TV, and saw the press reports. If any of them committed a crime, arrest them, charge them, and bl00dy well prosecute them using the Law on the land. And the same would go for the EDF mob as well.

Then why come up with "Maybe not in Sussex or Dorset, but try the vast majority of the East End of London, Birmingham and the mill towns of Lancashire and Yorkshire.......". The VAST MAJORITY of those communities are as integrated as any other immigrant groups are. Most of the problems are caused because people tend to be afraid of things they don't properly understand, and that runs both ways. Are you aware of how many different ethnic groups and traditions you are lumping together as 'the muslims' ? Setting aside the sometimes deep rifts between the Sunni and Shi'a fanctions, there are Indonesians, Indians, Pakistanis, Arabs, North Africans, Afghans, Iraqis, Iranians, etc, etc. You might as well refer to 'the Catholics' as a single entity.

Maybe not in Sussex or Dorset, but try the vast majority of the East End of London, Birmingham and the mill towns of Lancashire and Yorkshire....... I have Radio Lancashire on my alarm, it goes off at 6:00 every morning; never heard the call to prayer though. Nor have I ever found an Islamic teashop. Why not complain about the 'Sikh-isation' of parts of So'ton or the west midlands, of the Hinduisation of Leicester, or the cultural isolationism of Chinatown in Manchester ? There are streets in Blackpool where the To Let signs are in Polish - they even have a special Polish foods section in TESCO. If you want to be xenophobic and alarmist, please be consistent.

a) Just what parallel universe did you pop up from ? b) Pure sarcasm, brilliant. Delete as necessary