Renton

I agree with that.

I don't think ytou can say that without knowing what their family life was like - as I said if it was anything like those two kids in Doncaster, I'd pity them rather than condemn them. Of course I don't accept the supernatural definition of "evil" - I've always defined it for myself as people who know what they are doing is wrong and do it anyway - say like the Krays - I don't think kids like this who have had a shitty family life would know what was right and what was wrong. Did I imagine I heard on the radio last night that Thompson was considered a 'psychopath' who had warped Venebles, which is why an expert was surprised it was Venebles that may have 'relapsed'? A psychopath is someone who has a personality disorder in which they can't feel empathy with other people. It's not reversible or curable. If this is the case, it begs the question why was Thompson released any way?

The argument against capital punishment has already been won where it matters. That's one of the ironies here. The people who get their knickers in a twist because of our 'soft' legal system tend to be the ones who are most vociferously patriotic and nationalistic. I'm not nationalistic or particularly patriotic BUT I have enormous respect for our system of law and order, believing it to be the best in the world, with some justification I think. The nationalistic types, in general, would like us to fundamentally change our legal system and bring in a new era of barbarism akin to Saudi. I take delight in their seething in the full knowledge they'll NEVER get their way (unless ironically the muslims really do take over). When the muslims take over. In all seriousness - as if that isn't serious - what I really believe in is handing out firm punishments and sticking to it. They should fit the crime. Life should mean life. And yes I DO advocate capital punishment for certain crimes [although not many]. Whatever it costs to build the prisons, and employ the staff etc etc, do it, pay it, and whack it on income tax if need be. Those rich tories who want to keep their income tax yet have a good law and order system can fuck off because if they want it then they pay for it. See. I'm not a right winger....... I think this government has increased prison capacity by over 50%, it's getting close to 100,000 spaces, nearly all of which are utilized. That policy can only go so far. Like I said I think there are more fundamental problems - probably ultimately related with inequity in the spread of wealth - at the core of things. Bloody complicated subject though, and you'll be glad to know not one I'm particularly knowledgeable about or even that interested in currently. Btw your comment on the cost of keeping Venables and Thompson in prison for 'life' suggests you weren't joking about capital punishment in their specific case. I would not disagree that the root cause of crime is difficult to diagnose and the policy can only go so far. Another point is that if the population increases, then that is going to also be a contributory factor. I can see the point that executing those 2 could be regarded as inhumane by some, but what they did to Jamie Bulger was totally horrific beyond belief. All of us on here, we have all been 10 - could you commit such acts as they did, torturing a little defenceless bairn ? I probably wouldn't shoot them, no, but I couldn't think of an adequate punishment other than making sure they spent their lives in absolute misery, and well deserved too. Of course I can't imagine doing what they did, but then I didn't have their shitty backgrounds. I seriously can't remember what it's like to be 10 though, in actual fact I almost regard the child I was to be an entirely different person now. A child of 10 is not an adult, is he? Out of interest, what would be the lowest age you'd expect a child to have adult culpabilities - 9, 8, 7, 6? Regardless, why would I want them to spend the rest of their lives in misery, what good does that do, for anyone? I can understand the argument for nor releasing them because of the risk of reoffending but making them suffer all their lives completely misses the primary purpose of the judicial system imo. It shouldn't be about revenge. See Renton, it is easy to say that it shouldn't be about revenge, but nobody can know what it feels like unless it happens to you. As it happens I would take my hat off to someone who didn't seek revenge, but if it happened to your child, personally I would want to shoot those responsible. The horror of what happened to their little boy will never leave his parents. 10 years old is not an adult, but I am quite sure that personally I was aware enough to know certain things, and humane enough never to have remotedly thought of doing anything like that to anybody, least of all a 2-3 year old. It's pure evil, isn't it ? What DO you do ? How do you think his parents feel that these 2 scumbags get out and their son has gone forever. But that's the point. In this country the judicial system is entirely divorced from the feelings of the victims and that is very deliberate - so it can remain objective and focus on its primary concerns - prevention and rehabilitation. If you fundamentally disagree with that then that means you disagree with the system of law and justice that has evolved in this country over centuries. Justice is not equivalent to revenge. Incidentally revenge is clearly not a christian attitude either, and we are nominally a christian country. I expect nothing is going to make Mrs Bulger feel better. I do know that its generally a myth that family of victims in the US feel any sort of closure when the offender is executed though.

The argument against capital punishment has already been won where it matters. That's one of the ironies here. The people who get their knickers in a twist because of our 'soft' legal system tend to be the ones who are most vociferously patriotic and nationalistic. I'm not nationalistic or particularly patriotic BUT I have enormous respect for our system of law and order, believing it to be the best in the world, with some justification I think. The nationalistic types, in general, would like us to fundamentally change our legal system and bring in a new era of barbarism akin to Saudi. I take delight in their seething in the full knowledge they'll NEVER get their way (unless ironically the muslims really do take over). When the muslims take over. In all seriousness - as if that isn't serious - what I really believe in is handing out firm punishments and sticking to it. They should fit the crime. Life should mean life. And yes I DO advocate capital punishment for certain crimes [although not many]. Whatever it costs to build the prisons, and employ the staff etc etc, do it, pay it, and whack it on income tax if need be. Those rich tories who want to keep their income tax yet have a good law and order system can fuck off because if they want it then they pay for it. See. I'm not a right winger....... I think this government has increased prison capacity by over 50%, it's getting close to 100,000 spaces, nearly all of which are utilized. That policy can only go so far. Like I said I think there are more fundamental problems - probably ultimately related with inequity in the spread of wealth - at the core of things. Bloody complicated subject though, and you'll be glad to know not one I'm particularly knowledgeable about or even that interested in currently. Btw your comment on the cost of keeping Venables and Thompson in prison for 'life' suggests you weren't joking about capital punishment in their specific case. I would not disagree that the root cause of crime is difficult to diagnose and the policy can only go so far. Another point is that if the population increases, then that is going to also be a contributory factor. I can see the point that executing those 2 could be regarded as inhumane by some, but what they did to Jamie Bulger was totally horrific beyond belief. All of us on here, we have all been 10 - could you commit such acts as they did, torturing a little defenceless bairn ? I probably wouldn't shoot them, no, but I couldn't think of an adequate punishment other than making sure they spent their lives in absolute misery, and well deserved too. Of course I can't imagine doing what they did, but then I didn't have their shitty backgrounds. I seriously can't remember what it's like to be 10 though, in actual fact I almost regard the child I was to be an entirely different person now. A child of 10 is not an adult, is he? Out of interest, what would be the lowest age you'd expect a child to have adult culpabilities - 9, 8, 7, 6? Regardless, why would I want them to spend the rest of their lives in misery, what good does that do, for anyone? I can understand the argument for nor releasing them because of the risk of reoffending but making them suffer all their lives completely misses the primary purpose of the judicial system imo. It shouldn't be about revenge.

The argument against capital punishment has already been won where it matters. That's one of the ironies here. The people who get their knickers in a twist because of our 'soft' legal system tend to be the ones who are most vociferously patriotic and nationalistic. I'm not nationalistic or particularly patriotic BUT I have enormous respect for our system of law and order, believing it to be the best in the world, with some justification I think. The nationalistic types, in general, would like us to fundamentally change our legal system and bring in a new era of barbarism akin to Saudi. I take delight in their seething in the full knowledge they'll NEVER get their way (unless ironically the muslims really do take over). When the muslims take over. In all seriousness - as if that isn't serious - what I really believe in is handing out firm punishments and sticking to it. They should fit the crime. Life should mean life. And yes I DO advocate capital punishment for certain crimes [although not many]. Whatever it costs to build the prisons, and employ the staff etc etc, do it, pay it, and whack it on income tax if need be. Those rich tories who want to keep their income tax yet have a good law and order system can fuck off because if they want it then they pay for it. See. I'm not a right winger....... I think this government has increased prison capacity by over 50%, it's getting close to 100,000 spaces, nearly all of which are utilized. That policy can only go so far. Like I said I think there are more fundamental problems - probably ultimately related with inequity in the spread of wealth - at the core of things. Bloody complicated subject though, and you'll be glad to know not one I'm particularly knowledgeable about or even that interested in currently. Btw your comment on the cost of keeping Venables and Thompson in prison for 'life' suggests you weren't joking about capital punishment in their specific case.

The argument against capital punishment has already been won where it matters. That's one of the ironies here. The people who get their knickers in a twist because of our 'soft' legal system tend to be the ones who are most vociferously patriotic and nationalistic. I'm not nationalistic or particularly patriotic BUT I have enormous respect for our system of law and order, believing it to be the best in the world, with some justification I think. The nationalistic types, in general, would like us to fundamentally change our legal system and bring in a new era of barbarism akin to Saudi. I take delight in their seething in the full knowledge they'll NEVER get their way (unless ironically the muslims really do take over).

Agree absolutely 100%. Trouble is, they'll play the 'we can't afford to lock them up' line... Bullshit Bernard, lock the fuckers up properly rather than pandering to their wants/desires. This govenment has built loads of prisons though, there was an article in the news about it the other day, and we lock up far more people than any equivalent European country. Imo there's things that are fundamentally more wrong with this country than a lack of prisons, we seem to follow the US version of society more so than some much better examples we should take note of. Bulgers/Bell/Doncaster are all freak cases in any event. I couldn't believed the bare faced cheek of the tories to specifically blame Labour for the Doncaster incident, ffs.

A great man of principles imo, will be sadly missed. Edit: mind 96 is a good age, its not true the good always die young.

I think the likes of Armchair Pundit definitely need locking up, who by his own admission would derive pleasure from carrying out such an act. I'm also quite concerned by the suggestion that he currently works for the NHS. You don't think he was taking the piss?

I think it's the last one I haven't read. Well, that and Glue. Going to complete my collection via Amazon.

I thought the novella at the end was the best thing in it. Although I prefer novels to short stories in general anyway. Some weird shit in there like, as you say. I read Reheated Cabbage the other week, some excellent short stories but some unmitigated shit as well, especially the last story 'I am Miami' (also the only previously unpublished story in the compilation, worryingly). There's a story where Begbie goes to his Ma's for christmas dinner, very reminiscent of an unreformed Stevie, and hilarious. Skagheads (the prequel to Trainspotting) was due last year, I hope he ups his game for that.

cheap though and as such preferable IMO It's not remotely cheap though, unless you want to dispense of normal justice on your rush to the gallows. I've also always thought that the State killing people because it's a cheap option is a pretty dubious argument anyway.

So let me get this right.. they were given new identities, the cost of which was footed by us, the taxpayer and the MoJ thinks it's in the best interests of all to disclose the fact that one of them (with their secret identity) has been banged up again? Surely it'd have been in the best interests of all not to mention the connection to his former life? What the fuck have we paid for if not? You don't say ? I thought all these ideoligical left wing intellectual do gooders said that they can be taught the error of their ways ? We won't even talk about the cost of keeping them alive, very much a moot point, evil pair of cunts. Hanging is too good for them. Despite what the left wing intellectual do gooders try to tell you, they will always be evil cunts and a danger to the public. OK, I'll bite. I haven't got the answers for what should happen to these two, but I guess now it makes you a left wing intellectual do gooder if you feel uneasy about society executing ten year old children? Regardless, answering Craig's point, it seems bizarre they've released this information, can't see what public good it will do at all.

who says they are exempt from criticism ? If anything, this whole discussion, every time it comes up, is caused by idiots who don't appreciate what they did while it was there, even after the last few years. How long will it be before we qualify for the champions league again ? It could take years, it might never happen at all. They will STILL talk down the era when we did. You do, with your line of argument, in effect. As for the 2nd bolded bit, it looked a long way off anyway, didn't it? Aye. Leazes, are you confident we could have broke back into the Champions League if we were still owned by Hall/Shepherd? If not then do you accept their time here was effectively over, they had run their course, if we had any ambition for success? of course. With a good appointment, they would have backed him. You need to back them, you will never do it if you don't. No way am I getting into an argument about finances, but back the right appointment with what exactly? I don't believe they could have got us back to top 4 without extra investment, and I wouldn't trust their judgement of manager either given their track record.

who says they are exempt from criticism ? If anything, this whole discussion, every time it comes up, is caused by idiots who don't appreciate what they did while it was there, even after the last few years. How long will it be before we qualify for the champions league again ? It could take years, it might never happen at all. They will STILL talk down the era when we did. You do, with your line of argument, in effect. As for the 2nd bolded bit, it looked a long way off anyway, didn't it? Aye. Leazes, are you confident we could have broke back into the Champions League if we were still owned by Hall/Shepherd? If not then do you accept their time here was effectively over, they had run their course, if we had any ambition for success?

I'm going to give you a bit of slack here Renton. Why is it "fortuitous" ? Are you just latching onto the common view of those that won't give credit for anything ? Would you also say that the appointment of Alex Ferguson by ManU was also "fortuitous", and if not, why not ? Howay man, with Robson's existing connections with the club he was an absolute shoe in for the job. It was hardly an inspirational appointment by any means, every single man on the street would have made it. Even then though, according to Robson's biography, Shepherd nearly blew it by offering Robson a derisory salary. Ferguson's appointment was inspired in comparision, as was Wenger at Arsenal. Obviously there's a bit of luck and hindsight involved there though. So that begs the question, in a parallel Universe what would Shepherd and Hall done after Gullit had Robson not been available? Who knows but all the available evidence suggests to me they would have made a poorly judged appointment. It's worth pointing out as well that you keep banging on about us being the third biggest club in the country (or is it second) yet we only once achieved third under Shepherd. Not to mention we never won anything. Didn't even come close really. Yes things are much worse now but that just isn't relevant to the past. Anyway, the whole of football has turned to shit in the mean time, we'd be struggling at best still with Shepherd, and quite possibly have been relegated with debts big enough to destroy the club. It's just a shame we ended up with a tosser like Ashley. Of course, one half of your fantastic duo is responsible for selling out to Ashley anyway, he got his timing right, I'd give him that. Why did Sir Bob not come to Newcastle rather than spend all those years at Ipswich ? Yet again Renton, your daft remarks [in bold] ruin when I do give you the chance to be constructive. You just can't help yourself can you. Think about my question, above. Tell us which owners before or since have got nearer to being the 3rd best in the country ? This is my point, and always has been. We have a history at Newcastle of really shit owners going on for over 50 years now. Hall and Shepherd are undoubtedly the best of a bad bunch in this period. So what, it doesn't make them good owners. Ipswich were just about the only club willing to give Robson a chance at the time btw, after he was sacked from Fulham. He went from there to manage England and Europe. So what exactly is your point regarding this again? daylight. Wankers like manc mag won't answer because they fundamentally can't bring themselves to admit it. However, I would venture to suggest that taking a club with one foot in the 3rd division and a failed share flotation that couldn't even raise 1.25m quid and turning it into the 5th most qualfied team in the country, transforming the stadium and selling it on at a value they did after 15 years of signing top players, trophy winning managers - including attracting Bobby Robson unlike their predecessors - isn't so bad in fact they must have been half decent to have done all of that. We could do with the same now, wouldn't you agree ? I honestly don't think anybody doubts they did a lot of good Leazes, seriously. My contention would be though towards the end they lost lost the plot a bit and undid a lot of the good work achieved under Robson. As you know, for me personally they lost all credibility with the appointment of Souness and then Roeder on a full time basis. I personally don't think they had the finances and/or know how to stop the slide, unfortunately neither did/does Ashley it seems. Anyway man it's passed, it's history, it's finished. For you to keep bringing our current misfortune on the pitch as evidence you are right about immigration wears a bit thin after a while. Because if you read back over your posts, you'll see that's what you've been doing.

I'm going to give you a bit of slack here Renton. Why is it "fortuitous" ? Are you just latching onto the common view of those that won't give credit for anything ? Would you also say that the appointment of Alex Ferguson by ManU was also "fortuitous", and if not, why not ? Howay man, with Robson's existing connections with the club he was an absolute shoe in for the job. It was hardly an inspirational appointment by any means, every single man on the street would have made it. Even then though, according to Robson's biography, Shepherd nearly blew it by offering Robson a derisory salary. Ferguson's appointment was inspired in comparision, as was Wenger at Arsenal. Obviously there's a bit of luck and hindsight involved there though. So that begs the question, in a parallel Universe what would Shepherd and Hall done after Gullit had Robson not been available? Who knows but all the available evidence suggests to me they would have made a poorly judged appointment. It's worth pointing out as well that you keep banging on about us being the third biggest club in the country (or is it second) yet we only once achieved third under Shepherd. Not to mention we never won anything. Didn't even come close really. Yes things are much worse now but that just isn't relevant to the past. Anyway, the whole of football has turned to shit in the mean time, we'd be struggling at best still with Shepherd, and quite possibly have been relegated with debts big enough to destroy the club. It's just a shame we ended up with a tosser like Ashley. Of course, one half of your fantastic duo is responsible for selling out to Ashley anyway, he got his timing right, I'd give him that. Why did Sir Bob not come to Newcastle rather than spend all those years at Ipswich ? Yet again Renton, your daft remarks [in bold] ruin when I do give you the chance to be constructive. You just can't help yourself can you. Think about my question, above. Tell us which owners before or since have got nearer to being the 3rd best in the country ? This is my point, and always has been. We have a history at Newcastle of really shit owners going on for over 50 years now. Hall and Shepherd are undoubtedly the best of a bad bunch in this period. So what, it doesn't make them good owners. Ipswich were just about the only club willing to give Robson a chance at the time btw, after he was sacked from Fulham. He went from there to manage England and Europe. So what exactly is your point regarding this again?

Didn't even know this channel existed - is it digital? I normally just listen to Radio 4 and Five Live nowadays. Although all Five Live has done today is talk about the BBC.

It's an interesting argument to use to maybe wind people up but it should make them question the sources as well. I tend to think he did - more because of the existence of the cult that followed rather than because of any direct documentary eveidence such as the gospels. Yeah, I agree, but it's odd there is no formal historical record of him, which ironically is in contrast to some other 'messiahs' of the time. Also some of the NT is patently not true historically. The nativity story is contradictory in the 4 gospels, there was no recorded census, and iirc Nazareth didn't exist in Jesus's time. Not surprising since it is all word of mouth seperated by at least a generation from the alleged events really.

Lets face it there is reasonable doubt that Jesus didn't exist at all. It's also funny how religion will use science to back up their beliefs when it suits but are happy to ignore it most the time.

Aye. The church were gutted when the original carbon dating was done like. They won't allow it to be repeated now.

I'm going to give you a bit of slack here Renton. Why is it "fortuitous" ? Are you just latching onto the common view of those that won't give credit for anything ? Would you also say that the appointment of Alex Ferguson by ManU was also "fortuitous", and if not, why not ? Howay man, with Robson's existing connections with the club he was an absolute shoe in for the job. It was hardly an inspirational appointment by any means, every single man on the street would have made it. Even then though, according to Robson's biography, Shepherd nearly blew it by offering Robson a derisory salary. Ferguson's appointment was inspired in comparision, as was Wenger at Arsenal. Obviously there's a bit of luck and hindsight involved there though. So that begs the question, in a parallel Universe what would Shepherd and Hall done after Gullit had Robson not been available? Who knows but all the available evidence suggests to me they would have made a poorly judged appointment. It's worth pointing out as well that you keep banging on about us being the third biggest club in the country (or is it second) yet we only once achieved third under Shepherd. Not to mention we never won anything. Didn't even come close really. Yes things are much worse now but that just isn't relevant to the past. Anyway, the whole of football has turned to shit in the mean time, we'd be struggling at best still with Shepherd, and quite possibly have been relegated with debts big enough to destroy the club. It's just a shame we ended up with a tosser like Ashley. Of course, one half of your fantastic duo is responsible for selling out to Ashley anyway, he got his timing right, I'd give him that.

Calling Shepherd scum is probably a bit OTT but he was certainly motivated by personal gain. I sometimes wonder how 'successful' he would have been as chairman as well if it were not for the fortuitous availability of Robson. Let's face it his other managerial appointments were simply shit (and yes I am aware of the Hall's involvement here too). Anyway, it's definitely not a case that Leazes can claim to be definitively right as he often claims. Right about what exactly? That we may be worse off with a different owner? No shit Sherlock, that's a risk you take. I would say we have been exceptionally unlucky in the ownership stakes personally since Hall senior took a back seat.

I havent tried it but i would like to. can you post a link? http://www.uktestonline.co.uk/?p=sample_test Doesn't look as bad as I remember it but given the pass rate is 75% I'd imagine most the indigenous population here would fail it and get deported to Australia.

do you mean the same way you agree with the statement that everybody is 'a little bit thick' who is on opposite side of the political spectrum to you? is that the kind of attack you mean? I think Parky's comment was a bit tongue in cheek like, but why don't you attack him for making it rather than having a predictable pop at me? He was spot on about the BNP being largely supported by the disenfranchised working class though. I doubt Griffin would dispute that. Completely different in any case. Your and Leeazesmag attacks are about me personally, not something vague like the supporters of a political party. when did i attack you personally?? i thought we were just having a bit of friendly banter.... seriously tho, i find it bizarre in the extreme that you can suggest or agree with something so sweeping as everyone who supports an officially elected party is 'a little bit thick' then get all precious when you percieve an attack on yourself. and i didnt attack Parky cos he hasnt set himself up as an 'opponent' in this friendly battle of wits! Edit: and parky says he'll rip my fuckin head off!!11!!22£2454%2"££"$ precisely, and Renton himself is "so thick" he can't see it ............ It'd be interesting to know how many times you mention me in posts involving a third party. you have mentioned me twice to a third party in the last 15 minutes It's a matter of context though. The same type of context that means you can't tell the difference between calling an individual a cunt out of the blue, and me agreeing with one of Parky's tongue in cheek posts. aye, its different for you, because you're clever, and read "left wing publications" instead of "right wing rags", blah blah omg....... I've told you I read the Times. I'm not even particualrly left wing ffs! The Mail is a rag imo though, I stand by that, worst UK paper by a country mile. You're the only one who has stated I am clever, I never have anyway. Just what is the wierd obssession about my intelligence about anyway? You've been going on about it for literally YEARS now and I've never even met you to my knowledge. However, you have stated before you're never wrong and the sad thing is I think you actually believe that. One of my best mates reads the Times, he says he might vote BNP so that must make him a "thick white right winger" then. I have never voted for them btw despite my "racist right wing views", according to anybody who doesn't go along with this idea that we should give a home to anybody in the world who wants to come and live here, not learn the language, won't conform to our laws and customs, and tell us that we are the ones who should adapt to them. While bankrupting the country and overpopulating it in the process. Yes I am always right, or most of the time. I was right about the Halls and Shepherd, although you and lots of others disagreed with me, I also called Mike Ashley correctly after a few weeks despite the majority interpreting it as blind support to the Halls and Shepherd, and I am right about immigration too anyway. I actually agree that immigration should be restricted and that people who move here should be expected to integrate. Common sense really. This isn't what the BNP propose though is it? Incidentally have you tried to pass the citizenship test which is required for immigrants now? It's actually quite hard.