Again sorry for rambling. And for Basil,,

"And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise" I guess what Kipling was saying is don't fool yourself that you are too clever and have all the answers.

TJ,
Removed but, FFS, you needn't have bothered. I can't go to jail for what you called me but I could for the one recently mentioned.
I've been a Pruner since Feb1997 (Got a good Prune headsup about an interview that month) and I have never responded as I did today.
Regrettably, what I was called is a criminal offence. It should not be. The practitioners should just be told the error of their ways.
Perhaps, even with a pretty catholic lifetime experience, I can still be a bit naive.
Shall I tell you a story?
I once took an ethnically African colleague to an overseas bar where there was to be a Brit stand-up comedian. He looked a bit concerned and didn't really want to go. I, having never, even in my early forties, seen a 'stand-up', said there was no problem. Oh dear! How would you like to sit there realising that the boss knew what was coming but was too polite to refuse to accompany one?

In your reply to me there, good words, Tom.

Basil,

What I was saying was that my intent in what I had said was to deliberately provoke you and that was wrong in light of my subsequent posting. I guess I had kinda found myself in a uncomfortable place. While I still disagree with you on your general thrust I cannot in my heart bear any malice toward you. You are as equally entitled to your views (wrong as believe them to be) as I mine. In short , I was saying sorry mate.

In a funny esoteric kinda way we are playing out the very philosophy that our enemies hate us for - live and let live. It's a shame that the murderers of Lee Rigby had rejected that philosophy. But, in my opinion, the crime belongs to them alone not a race, religion, creed or culture.

You must have the patience of a Saint Courtney- you found them in amongst the ramblings. Cheers mate.

You know these recent events have left us all rattled. Might be worth pausing just to reflect on what unites us rather than divides. I think most of us share views in common here, we are cut from the same stock - even if in our frustration our postings suggest otherwise .

But these days it isn't working like that. Positive discrimination is both rife and ruinous, fails to acknowledge 'qualified and able' and meritocracy is out the door, that is how PC we have become, in the UK and Australia. Just one case in point, (but there are many), the recent female commissioner of police in Victoria, totally unsuitable and incompetent, as the aftermath of the 2009 fires showed, had positive discrimination in favour of women recruits. As a seasoned sergeant said, "On a Saturday night in Melbourne I want a six foot plus 100kg plus fit male backing me up, not a five foot 50kg female constable from an ethnic minority who I have to protect and is therefore a liability and a hindrance". Thank you Ms. Dixon.

El G. At #203 you said

Would have been a good idea.

Rgds SOS

Parabellum - by way of balance, I did also say this in the preceding paragraph

The weak and limp discussion between you and I rather than the general one

I refer you to my previous response !

Thank you and good day

El G.

I'm with you there on positive discrimination. The selection of a new candidate for Westminster in my area from the Labour party, is to be from an all female short list. This was achieved by the Unite union canvassing existing Labour party members, and getting members of their union in this area to join the Labour party. I think this is totally wrong and unacceptable. It should be the right person for the job, irrespective of race, creed, colour, or sex. As for a trade union, (or any external organisation), influencing the selection of a parliamentary candidate, that should be made illegal.

Yes [email protected], sorry I overlooked that and should have worded my response accordingly.:O

(Positive discrimination here in the Australian Police Force is a very sore point amongst the force itself, ideal recruits being by-passed by positive discrimination).

Remember?
 

The whole affair is disgraceful - but, it was a murder pure and simple and must be treated as such. I am sure there are members here who remember the days of not going off station in uniform due to British citizens wanting to shoot, bomb, or otherwise harm them. It was the IRA thing.......

The powers be at the time quite simply did not accept that these were political or religious killings, but the people who commited the killings would be tried in civil courts and under civil law.

This at a stroke removed any defence of 'religion' or 'cause' or any other daft excuse - I do not in any way believe in the death penalty, goodness, 17 years in a brick box must be worse, but if an individual sets out to commit a deliberate action to kill another then the law of the land must be seen to be in action. And, that is one of the rights that we can feel good about.

I watched a guy get stabbed to death on a bus 18 years ago (Not in Blighty) and still have the scar on my right arm. Nobody would get involved which frankly appalled me. I could not not get involved - I despise bullying of any sort.

And full kudos to those ladies who did get involved in London - more cojones than the black uniformed lot who I believe are supposed to put their necks on the line? They get paid enough after all..........

Well I do, but only in cases where there is no doubt of guilt. There's now around 7 billion people on our over crowded planet, we don't need this trash. Oh, and since every taxpayer (including that of the victim's family) is footing the bill to keep them alive, I find doing so particularly obscene.

And which ones would those be? Given that a guilty verdict can be applied where it is beyond reasonable doubt, which guilty verdicts attract the death penalty and which one imprisonment? And who gets to make that decission?

People can end up on death row for decades whilst appeals and retrials, etc, etc, take place. Most prisoners are out before then!

There are plenty, let me give two examples. A Mr A. Hitler, would be one, and our current two "suspects" (seriously, is there any doubt at all in this case), would be another.

The decision would be made by a judicial panel upon referral of a guilty verdict by the presiding judge. The criteria would be no doubt, not reasonable doubt.

As for death row, I'm not advocating the American way of doing things.

I can't argue with your sentiment, Case One, but I'm not convinced that anyone could guarantee, 100%, error-free judgement on that one. The judicial panel system sounds a bit like a double trial; a trial by jury to convict on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt' followed by a summary procedure to try on the basis of beyond any doubt, or would that just be to test is the first trial did convict beyond any doubt?

For what it's worth, I observed a trial in Crown Court last year; several charges of very serious offences just short of murder.

I listened to the Judge summing up and when he sent the Jury out he told them "You can only reach a verdict of guilty if you have no doubt at all of the facts in this case". He didn't say "beyond reasonable doubt".

I wondered if that was a new standard or whether the oft quoted "beyond reasonable doubt" was an urban myth or whether there are some cases in which the standard of proof must be higher than "beyond reasonable doubt".

Does anyone know?

Rgds SOS

I served as a juror in an attempted murder trial quite a few years ago, (Scottish court), and I'm pretty sure it was "beyond all reasonable doubt", but we also have the "not proven" verdict. Incidentally, ten years later I received another letter for jury service, I wasn't required on that occasion. Quite strange, I'm the only one in my family to have been called for jury service.

Apparently it's random selection. A bit like lightning - never strikes twice. Oh really?

Rgds SOS