Tried for treason and then executed, and to all the people saying 'if we do that then we are stooping to their level', you do realise its the only thing these sub-human rats understand, they see the UK as a soft touch and on issues like these we are, so make a bloody example of them.
Would need a change in the law. Treason is no longer punishable by death in the UK.
Tried for treason and then executed, and to all the people saying 'if we do that then we are stooping to their level', you do realise its the only thing these sub-human rats understand, they see the UK as a soft touch and on issues like these we are, so make a bloody example of them.
Would need a change in the law. Treason is no longer punishable by death in the UK.
Would be interesting to see, if we did actually change the law, whether these scumbags would still like to come back home.
Tried for treason and then executed, and to all the people saying 'if we do that then we are stooping to their level', you do realise its the only thing these sub-human rats understand, they see the UK as a soft touch and on issues like these we are, so make a bloody example of them.
Would need a change in the law. Treason is no longer punishable by death in the UK.
Yes I understand that is the case, then we change the law.
Tried for treason and then executed, and to all the people saying 'if we do that then we are stooping to their level', you do realise its the only thing these sub-human rats understand, they see the UK as a soft touch and on issues like these we are, so make a bloody example of them.
Would need a change in the law. Treason is no longer punishable by death in the UK.
Tried for treason and then executed, and to all the people saying 'if we do that then we are stooping to their level', you do realise its the only thing these sub-human rats understand, they see the UK as a soft touch and on issues like these we are, so make a bloody example of them.
Would need a change in the law. Treason is no longer punishable by death in the UK.
Yes I understand that is the case, then we change the law.
I refer you to NornIrish post above.
MP’s would never vote to bring back the death penalty in any case.
Tried for treason and then executed, and to all the people saying 'if we do that then we are stooping to their level', you do realise its the only thing these sub-human rats understand, they see the UK as a soft touch and on issues like these we are, so make a bloody example of them.
Would need a change in the law. Treason is no longer punishable by death in the UK.
Yes I understand that is the case, then we change the law.
I refer you to NornIrish post above.
MP’s would never vote to bring back the death penalty in any case.
I refer you to my post above.
If I'm ever arrested here I would expect to be tried and sentenced here, why should it be any different for these scum bags?
I know the risks I take if i want to live here and break the law, they did too. Let the Syrians try them.
Tried for treason and then executed, and to all the people saying 'if we do that then we are stooping to their level', you do realise its the only thing these sub-human rats understand, they see the UK as a soft touch and on issues like these we are, so make a bloody example of them.
Would need a change in the law. Treason is no longer punishable by death in the UK.
Yes I understand that is the case, then we change the law.
I refer you to NornIrish post above.
MP’s would never vote to bring back the death penalty in any case.
You can refer me if you like, BUT in the case of treason it should be brought back, most people with a sense of reality wouldn't argue. Execute every one of the terrorist bastards. Or as Stu says......
Just watched an interview with these scumbags on Sky News.
I can't find the words to describe how I feel about them.
Given a trap door handle, I think that I could find the correct action.
Exactly, would people on here and in our country really lose sleep if they were done away with?
Well, I would, because I am fundamentally opposed to the death penalty.
Do I have any time or sympathy for these people? Absolutely not.
But, in the end, we all lose out if, in seeking to defeat violent extremism, we adopt extreme violence as a preferred response.
The counter argument to your stance is that the death pebalty method does not need to come into your category of " extreme violence"
I would like to see the rationale behind the argument that killing someone is not extreme violence.
I was referring to the method of the death penalty such as a drug related method. That method does not constitute my understanding of the phrase "extreme violence".
The whole argument of the rights and wrongs of the death penalty is a different topic entirely.
Before anyone thinks I have any sympathy whatsoever with these pieces of human excrement I do not.
Being a pragmatist I’m all in favour of the Americans getting them back to the states to put them on trial but on trial they must go. I tend to agree with the view that the longer they are kept in Syria the more likely they are to escape justice.
I do not agree with the death penalty under any circumstances and thankfully this country for the most part agrees.
Just watched an interview with these scumbags on Sky News.
I can't find the words to describe how I feel about them.
Given a trap door handle, I think that I could find the correct action.
Exactly, would people on here and in our country really lose sleep if they were done away with?
Well, I would, because I am fundamentally opposed to the death penalty.
Do I have any time or sympathy for these people? Absolutely not.
But, in the end, we all lose out if, in seeking to defeat violent extremism, we adopt extreme violence as a preferred response.
The counter argument to your stance is that the death pebalty method does not need to come into your category of " extreme violence"
I would like to see the rationale behind the argument that killing someone is not extreme violence.
I was referring to the method of the death penalty such as a drug related method. That method does not constitute my understanding of the phrase "extreme violence".
The whole argument of the rights and wrongs of the death penalty is a different topic entirely.
Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation," although the group acknowledges that the inclusion of "the use of power" in its definition expands on the conventional understanding of the word.[2] This definition involves intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces. However, generally, anything that is excited in an injurious or damaging way may be described as violent even if not meant to be violence (by a person and against a person).
Just watched an interview with these scumbags on Sky News.
I can't find the words to describe how I feel about them.
Given a trap door handle, I think that I could find the correct action.
Exactly, would people on here and in our country really lose sleep if they were done away with?
Well, I would, because I am fundamentally opposed to the death penalty.
Do I have any time or sympathy for these people? Absolutely not.
But, in the end, we all lose out if, in seeking to defeat violent extremism, we adopt extreme violence as a preferred response.
The counter argument to your stance is that the death pebalty method does not need to come into your category of " extreme violence"
I would like to see the rationale behind the argument that killing someone is not extreme violence.
I was referring to the method of the death penalty such as a drug related method. That method does not constitute my understanding of the phrase "extreme violence".
The whole argument of the rights and wrongs of the death penalty is a different topic entirely.
Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation," although the group acknowledges that the inclusion of "the use of power" in its definition expands on the conventional understanding of the word.[2] This definition involves intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces. However, generally, anything that is excited in an injurious or damaging way may be described as violent even if not meant to be violence (by a person and against a person).
Thanks for that official interpretation, which I was unaware of....however you used the term "extreme violence" which I was challenging.
Tried for treason and then executed, and to all the people saying 'if we do that then we are stooping to their level', you do realise its the only thing these sub-human rats understand, they see the UK as a soft touch and on issues like these we are, so make a bloody example of them.
Would need a change in the law. Treason is no longer punishable by death in the UK.
Yes I understand that is the case, then we change the law.
I refer you to NornIrish post above.
MP’s would never vote to bring back the death penalty in any case.
I refer you to my post above.
If I'm ever arrested here I would expect to be tried and sentenced here, why should it be any different for these scum bags?
I know the risks I take if i want to live here and break the law, they did too. Let the Syrians try them.
Well, if you'd committed crimes of the sort discussed here, but in a civilised country, in the normal course of events, I'd expect you to be tried in the International Criminal Court in The Hague. But as China along with all the other usual suspects either haven't signed up to the treaty (or ratified it) then that wouldn't happen.
The situation regarding this lot is complex. The UK is signed up to the ICC but we've binned their citizenship, so what's it got to do with us? Of course, neither Russia or the US are signed up to the ICC either. And while Syria, surprisingly, has, it's not ratified.
The snag is who is holding these people? Is it the Syrian Democratic Forces, mainly Kurds, who don't actually have a country, or are they now with the Yanks, awaiting extraordinary rendition to Guantanamo Bay? Who knows? Who'd be surprised if a cruise missile accidentally dropped on their heads?
Just watched an interview with these scumbags on Sky News.
I can't find the words to describe how I feel about them.
Given a trap door handle, I think that I could find the correct action.
Exactly, would people on here and in our country really lose sleep if they were done away with?
Well, I would, because I am fundamentally opposed to the death penalty.
Do I have any time or sympathy for these people? Absolutely not.
But, in the end, we all lose out if, in seeking to defeat violent extremism, we adopt extreme violence as a preferred response.
The counter argument to your stance is that the death pebalty method does not need to come into your category of " extreme violence"
I would like to see the rationale behind the argument that killing someone is not extreme violence.
I was referring to the method of the death penalty such as a drug related method. That method does not constitute my understanding of the phrase "extreme violence".
The whole argument of the rights and wrongs of the death penalty is a different topic entirely.
Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation," although the group acknowledges that the inclusion of "the use of power" in its definition expands on the conventional understanding of the word.[2] This definition involves intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces. However, generally, anything that is excited in an injurious or damaging way may be described as violent even if not meant to be violence (by a person and against a person).
Thanks for that official interpretation, which I was unaware of....however you used the term "extreme violence" which I was challenging.
Using the WHO definition of violence I’m really not sure how much more extreme you can get if you kill someone.
Just watched an interview with these scumbags on Sky News.
I can't find the words to describe how I feel about them.
Given a trap door handle, I think that I could find the correct action.
Exactly, would people on here and in our country really lose sleep if they were done away with?
Well, I would, because I am fundamentally opposed to the death penalty.
Do I have any time or sympathy for these people? Absolutely not.
But, in the end, we all lose out if, in seeking to defeat violent extremism, we adopt extreme violence as a preferred response.
The counter argument to your stance is that the death pebalty method does not need to come into your category of " extreme violence"
I would like to see the rationale behind the argument that killing someone is not extreme violence.
I was referring to the method of the death penalty such as a drug related method. That method does not constitute my understanding of the phrase "extreme violence".
The whole argument of the rights and wrongs of the death penalty is a different topic entirely.
Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation," although the group acknowledges that the inclusion of "the use of power" in its definition expands on the conventional understanding of the word.[2] This definition involves intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces. However, generally, anything that is excited in an injurious or damaging way may be described as violent even if not meant to be violence (by a person and against a person).
Thanks for that official interpretation, which I was unaware of....however you used the term "extreme violence" which I was challenging.
Using the WHO definition of violence I’m really not sure how much more extreme you can get if you kill someone.
Regardless of legal, or in this case seemingly arbitrary, definitions, I think most people would take the term 'extreme violence' to denote something like a frenzied knife attack, prolonged torture or, in the words of Marsellus Wallace, "a coupla hard, pipe-hittin' ****s, who'll go to work on the homes here with a pair of pliers and a blow torch". Not a relatively humane lethal injection or other similar process of legal execution.
Just watched an interview with these scumbags on Sky News.
I can't find the words to describe how I feel about them.
Given a trap door handle, I think that I could find the correct action.
Exactly, would people on here and in our country really lose sleep if they were done away with?
Well, I would, because I am fundamentally opposed to the death penalty.
Do I have any time or sympathy for these people? Absolutely not.
But, in the end, we all lose out if, in seeking to defeat violent extremism, we adopt extreme violence as a preferred response.
The counter argument to your stance is that the death pebalty method does not need to come into your category of " extreme violence"
I would like to see the rationale behind the argument that killing someone is not extreme violence.
I was referring to the method of the death penalty such as a drug related method. That method does not constitute my understanding of the phrase "extreme violence".
The whole argument of the rights and wrongs of the death penalty is a different topic entirely.
Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation," although the group acknowledges that the inclusion of "the use of power" in its definition expands on the conventional understanding of the word.[2] This definition involves intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces. However, generally, anything that is excited in an injurious or damaging way may be described as violent even if not meant to be violence (by a person and against a person).
Thanks for that official interpretation, which I was unaware of....however you used the term "extreme violence" which I was challenging.
Using the WHO definition of violence I’m really not sure how much more extreme you can get if you kill someone.
Regardless of legal, or in this case seemingly arbitrary, definitions, I think most people would take the term 'extreme violence' to denote something like a frenzied knife attack, prolonged torture or, in the words of Marsellus Wallace, "a coupla hard, pipe-hittin' ****s, who'll go to work on the homes here with a pair of pliers and a blow torch". Not a relatively humane lethal injection or other similar process of legal execution.
I suppose I’m just not able to see the justification in taking someone’s life in anyone’s name including that of the state.
I can’t see how any system of carrying out the death sentence is anything other than barbaric.
I’m much happier seeing these people locked away for all their lives which I see as a worse punishment anyway.
Just watched an interview with these scumbags on Sky News.
I can't find the words to describe how I feel about them.
Given a trap door handle, I think that I could find the correct action.
Exactly, would people on here and in our country really lose sleep if they were done away with?
Well, I would, because I am fundamentally opposed to the death penalty.
Do I have any time or sympathy for these people? Absolutely not.
But, in the end, we all lose out if, in seeking to defeat violent extremism, we adopt extreme violence as a preferred response.
The counter argument to your stance is that the death pebalty method does not need to come into your category of " extreme violence"
I would like to see the rationale behind the argument that killing someone is not extreme violence.
I was referring to the method of the death penalty such as a drug related method. That method does not constitute my understanding of the phrase "extreme violence".
The whole argument of the rights and wrongs of the death penalty is a different topic entirely.
Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation," although the group acknowledges that the inclusion of "the use of power" in its definition expands on the conventional understanding of the word.[2] This definition involves intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces. However, generally, anything that is excited in an injurious or damaging way may be described as violent even if not meant to be violence (by a person and against a person).
Thanks for that official interpretation, which I was unaware of....however you used the term "extreme violence" which I was challenging.
Using the WHO definition of violence I’m really not sure how much more extreme you can get if you kill someone.
Regardless of legal, or in this case seemingly arbitrary, definitions, I think most people would take the term 'extreme violence' to denote something like a frenzied knife attack, prolonged torture or, in the words of Marsellus Wallace, "a coupla hard, pipe-hittin' ****s, who'll go to work on the homes here with a pair of pliers and a blow torch". Not a relatively humane lethal injection or other similar process of legal execution.
I suppose I’m just not able to see the justification in taking someone’s life in anyone’s name including that of the state.
I can’t see how any system of carrying out the death sentence is anything other than barbaric.
I’m much happier seeing these people locked away for all their lives which I see as a worse punishment anyway.
Prison life can be cushy, I have had contracts in a lot of prisons and seen inside plenty, trust me whilst it is an inconvenience to be locked away they do not suffer.
Sky TV, games rooms, drugs, mobile phones. Doncaster prison even had a private room where the guards used to let inmates have a quiet "10 minutes" with wives/girlfriends" whilst a blind eye was turned.
I suppose I’m just not able to see the justification in taking someone’s life in anyone’s name including that of the state.
I can’t see how any system of carrying out the death sentence is anything other than barbaric.
I’m much happier seeing these people locked away for all their lives which I see as a worse punishment anyway.
Agreed, if it's not a UK prison, where life is not that bad at all and they can still peddle their filth.
I never get the argument either about stooping to their level if capital punishment was used. Same result (death) maybe but extremely different reasons. One is murder committed due to their warped ideology and the other (would be) legal punishment for a proven crime. Completely different and would not make 'us' as bad as 'them'.
It's like saying a Vet is stooping to the same level as an animal killer - one is scum and has no excuse, where as the other is following legitimate procedure based on qualified and subjective opinion, but in both cases the life of the subject is ended.
In the heat of the moment I'm sure we are all capable of killing but to walk into a room and put a stranger down, no matter what his or her crime were, takes a different individual than me. I would not expect someone else to do something I could never do myself, on those grounds, I object to capital punishment. Also its not just the lever puller, trigger puller, switch flipper or button pusher that it has a long term effect on, those surrounding the condemned have to live with the memories as well. I'm sure there would be a long queue of people who would gladly volunteer their services to put scum down but I'm happy to say I could never stand in that line. Locking them up with no hope of living with their families or in normal communities ever again is one hell of a torture that we can do legally now. This is what I'd be more than happy with.
Tried for treason and then executed, and to all the people saying 'if we do that then we are stooping to their level', you do realise its the only thing these sub-human rats understand, they see the UK as a soft touch and on issues like these we are, so make a bloody example of them.
Would need a change in the law. Treason is no longer punishable by death in the UK.
Yes I understand that is the case, then we change the law.
I refer you to NornIrish post above.
MP’s would never vote to bring back the death penalty in any case.
Tried for treason and then executed, and to all the people saying 'if we do that then we are stooping to their level', you do realise its the only thing these sub-human rats understand, they see the UK as a soft touch and on issues like these we are, so make a bloody example of them.
Would need a change in the law. Treason is no longer punishable by death in the UK.
Yes I understand that is the case, then we change the law.
I refer you to NornIrish post above.
MP’s would never vote to bring back the death penalty in any case.
I'm not so sure these days...
Let the people decide. We should have a Referendum!
Bring them back, try them, convict them, put them away. Then just don't afford them special protection. It'll sort itself out.
But that wont happen will it. They will be put in Bellmarsh that has a very active Muslim community and they even have their own mosque to pray in all paid for by the British Tax payer.
There is zero chance these scum bags will be found in the shower with a home made blade in them.
While we're at it, let's bring it back for murderers and rapists too!
Oh oops we accidentally killed an innocent person. Never mind at least we felt better about our lives at the time.
'Lets release them after 10 years, oops they've killed again' might be a response to that.
'There's no deterrent effect to make potential murderers think twice', might be another.
And then we look at the graph below Quite the dilemma.
Whilst I appreciate that you have been channelling your inner Britney, I do think that the graph relates more to the relative levels of violence in the countries involved, rather then the deterrent effect of either prison or the death sentence.
I'd recommend anyone favouring a return to the death penalty consider English history, and particularly the efficacy of the Waltham Black Act of 1723/Bloody Code.
While we're at it, let's bring it back for murderers and rapists too!
Oh oops we accidentally killed an innocent person. Never mind at least we felt better about our lives at the time.
'Lets release them after 10 years, oops they've killed again' might be a response to that.
'There's no deterrent effect to make potential murderers think twice', might be another.
And then we look at the graph below Quite the dilemma.
An interesting graph but only if taken at face value. While the "red" countries might still have the death penalty on the statute book, you also have to look at when it was last enforced: Jamaica 1988; El Salvador 1973; Guatemala 2000; Trinidad & Tobago 1999; Lesotho 1995 and St Kitts 2008 (but that was the first for 11 years).
In other words the graph is of no help whatsoever.
Bring them back, try them, convict them, put them away. Then just don't afford them special protection. It'll sort itself out.
But that wont happen will it. They will be put in Bellmarsh that has a very active Muslim community and they even have their own mosque to pray in all paid for by the British Tax payer.
There is zero chance these scum bags will be found in the shower with a home made blade in them.
They probably wouldn’t end up in Belmarsh if tried here. There’s a new initiative in the system that has seen separatist units open to deal with extremists and radicalisers. There’s one where I work and one open up at Frankland. About fifteen years too late in my opinion but it is what is. I agree with your last point.
For what it’s worth I think they should stand trial in the country where they committed their acts of horror and if that doesn’t measure up to the ideals of British justice then so be it. I certainly wouldn’t lose any sleep.
Comments
I refer you to NornIrish post above.
MP’s would never vote to bring back the death penalty in any case.
If I'm ever arrested here I would expect to be tried and sentenced here, why should it be any different for these scum bags?
I know the risks I take if i want to live here and break the law, they did too. Let the Syrians try them.
Or as Stu says......
The whole argument of the rights and wrongs of the death penalty is a different topic entirely.
Being a pragmatist I’m all in favour of the Americans getting them back to the states to put them on trial but on trial they must go. I tend to agree with the view that the longer they are kept in Syria the more likely they are to escape justice.
I do not agree with the death penalty under any circumstances and thankfully this country for the most part agrees.
Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation," although the group acknowledges that the inclusion of "the use of power" in its definition expands on the conventional understanding of the word.[2] This definition involves intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces. However, generally, anything that is excited in an injurious or damaging way may be described as violent even if not meant to be violence (by a person and against a person).
The situation regarding this lot is complex. The UK is signed up to the ICC but we've binned their citizenship, so what's it got to do with us? Of course, neither Russia or the US are signed up to the ICC either. And while Syria, surprisingly, has, it's not ratified.
The snag is who is holding these people? Is it the Syrian Democratic Forces, mainly Kurds, who don't actually have a country, or are they now with the Yanks, awaiting extraordinary rendition to Guantanamo Bay? Who knows? Who'd be surprised if a cruise missile accidentally dropped on their heads?
I can’t see how any system of carrying out the death sentence is anything other than barbaric.
I’m much happier seeing these people locked away for all their lives which I see as a worse punishment anyway.
Sky TV, games rooms, drugs, mobile phones. Doncaster prison even had a private room where the guards used to let inmates have a quiet "10 minutes" with wives/girlfriends" whilst a blind eye was turned.
I never get the argument either about stooping to their level if capital punishment was used. Same result (death) maybe but extremely different reasons. One is murder committed due to their warped ideology and the other (would be) legal punishment for a proven crime. Completely different and would not make 'us' as bad as 'them'.
It's like saying a Vet is stooping to the same level as an animal killer - one is scum and has no excuse, where as the other is following legitimate procedure based on qualified and subjective opinion, but in both cases the life of the subject is ended.
I would not expect someone else to do something I could never do myself, on those grounds, I object to capital punishment. Also its not just the lever puller, trigger puller, switch flipper or button pusher that it has a long term effect on, those surrounding the condemned have to live with the memories as well. I'm sure there would be a long queue of people who would gladly volunteer their services to put scum down but I'm happy to say I could never stand in that line.
Locking them up with no hope of living with their families or in normal communities ever again is one hell of a torture that we can do legally now. This is what I'd be more than happy with.
While we're at it, let's bring it back for murderers and rapists too!
Oh oops we accidentally killed an innocent person. Never mind at least we felt better about our lives at the time.
Then just don't afford them special protection. It'll sort itself out.
There is zero chance these scum bags will be found in the shower with a home made blade in them.
'There's no deterrent effect to make potential murderers think twice', might be another.
And then we look at the graph below
Quite the dilemma.
I'd recommend anyone favouring a return to the death penalty consider English history, and particularly the efficacy of the Waltham Black Act of 1723/Bloody Code.
In other words the graph is of no help whatsoever.
They probably wouldn’t end up in Belmarsh if tried here. There’s a new initiative in the system that has seen separatist units open to deal with extremists and radicalisers. There’s one where I work and one open up at Frankland. About fifteen years too late in my opinion but it is what is. I agree with your last point.
For what it’s worth I think they should stand trial in the country where they committed their acts of horror and if that doesn’t measure up to the ideals of British justice then so be it. I certainly wouldn’t lose any sleep.