Oooh goody! Yet another Byron political rant. *yawn*

---

by Callum
Oooh goody! Yet another Byron political rant. *yawn*

---

*snigger*

---

by Callum
Oooh goody! Yet another Byron political rant. *yawn*

---

If politics doesn't interest you then don't read the threads. It was pretty obvious from the title and what we know about Byron's personal politics what this thread was going to be about.

As for Mr Davis's comments...

Gesture politics is nothing new from the opposition party. This is a rather extreme example and I'd imagine that the comments were made to gat a little publicity and show that Howard's Tory Party is nothing like IDS's Tory Party.

I've seen a few debates about capital punishment recently, but my thought on it remain the same... It shouldn't be brought back because its a shoddy method of punishment. Aside form all the implications if someone is proven to be innocent after the fact, I also feel that if someone has committed a crime of such severity that the death penalty would be 'awarded' that they should suffer for it... Death isn't suffering for the person who committed the crime.

Thats my views in a very small nutshell... all in all I'm quite relieved that I don't agree with David Davis

Sydney, politics does interest me very much, what bores me is Byron's perpetual anti-Tory whinging. He frequently uses this site to espouse his personal political beliefs, which are often as biased, bigoted and prejudiced as those he proffesses to despise.

What both you and he neglect to mention is that at the time he made these comments David Davis explicitly stated that these were his personal beliefs, not his political ones, neither were they Party ones.

This is a free country -- Byron's free to hate if he want's to, and he seems to be free to post his political oppinions here; I'm similarly free to mock him, and while he continues to publicise his prejudices here I'll continue to mock him here.

Should he become more balanced in his perspective, and constructive in his comments, maybe I'll take him more seriously.

---

by Callum
I'm similarly free to mock him,

---

You are indeed.

However, it would be more constructive and far more interesting to read if you would argue with his points, or point out where you think he is being 'biased, bigoted and prejudiced', rather than using poor sarcasm.


(Edited by Staff 19/11/2003 12:06)

Callum, the post was joshing Mr Davis for making hang 'em and flog 'em remarks the moment he got into (shadow) office, it was not launching a political campaign. I'd have done exactly the same if someone from the Cabinet of the Lib Dems, Labour or the Socialist Alliance had come out in favour of stringing up the mentally ill. Politicos have all sorts of personal opinions it's considered politic to keep personal when in government or shadow government, since what they say inevitably reflects on their party.

Seems his fellow Conservatives agree with me!

I'm sure I've posted more dark mutterings about new Labour than the Tories, but maybe I have been neglecting the Whigs. I promise you every slip up from Pit the Younger and Warpole with in future be reported forthwith!

I was under the impression that personal attacks against other members of T21 were not allowed on this board.

---

by Nutty Bat
I was under the impression that personal attacks against other members of T21 were not allowed on this board.

---

They aren't

If you're referring to anything Callum has said, it's not in my opinion a personal attack and I'm quite happy to reply. If you're referring to the edited comment, an email's already been dispatched.

---

by Callum
Sydney, politics does interest me very much, what bores me is Byron's perpetual anti-Tory whinging. He frequently uses this site to espouse his personal political beliefs, which are often as biased, bigoted and prejudiced as those he professes to despise.

---

Colourful language. "whinging", "uses this site", "biased, bigoted and prejudiced". Very good, very good. Classic example of empty rhetoric, as also shown in the opening salvo #Yawn#.

But empty rhetoric they are. On bias, well I've seen plenty of similar attacks on the other major party and the wannabes. As you only profess to be bored of his anti-Tory whinging I assume you are happy with his anti-Labour and anti-LibDem whinging. Now is that bias, bigotry or prejudice on your part? I get so easily confused.

---

by Callum
What both you and he neglect to mention is that at the time he made these comments David Davis explicitly stated that these were his personal beliefs, not his political ones, neither were they Party ones.

---

Sorry: more confusion. What is the difference between a personal belief and a political one, when the subject is in itself political? And the opener clearly states this is the opinion of Mr Davies, and the comment about how he could not deliver clearly demonstrates the personal nature of the comment. It's still reprehensible whichever way you colour it.

---

by Callum
and while he continues to publicise his prejudices here I'll continue to mock him here.

---

To avoid confusion the following is a personal opinion offered as constructive criticism. Cheap rhetorical shots make for poor reading and leave you looking the poorer for it. If someone presents their view, even if a smattering of humour is used, like the thread opener, or this post, then a response that deals with those views in a measured manner is what is required. With a smattering of humour, if you so desire. Cheap jibes suggest nothing other than opposition to those views, without any substance behind that opposition.

And another piece of personal opinion and constructive criticism: YouÂ’re better than that Callum. YouÂ’re intelligent, and have proven on many an occasion of being able to hold your own in a discussion. Which is why the above empty rhetoric and cheap jibes are particularly disappointing. I can't think, off hand, of the last time we agreed in discussion, but I have always respected your views, and you as a person. Your above posts suggest you do not afford the same respect to people who disagree with your views. I don't think that's the case, but that's how you sounded to me. I look forward to future posts that show this not to be the case.

Oh, and the topic. Gesture Politics (or empty rhetoric, as I like to call it) is not only the preserve of opposition MPs, Tories or even Mr Davies. Mr Blunkett has shown this on many an occasion. Least I hope that a lot of what he says is gesture politics, as he frequently pushes for policy that contravenes laws this government has passed. I mean, it's either gesture politics or he's incredibly stupid. Though a combination of both options is my personal theory.

On capital punishment, Sydney said pretty much what I think. I find the concept of capital punishment to be morally abhorrent on a number of levels, and cannot support any politician who advocates their return, however insincere.

And on Mr Davies, I do indeed agree this paints him in a very poor (and cheap) light, whatever his motives.

Its intresting to see that this form of punishment would be used as a deterent to serial killers, These people arent exacty your average (is there such a thing) killer and wouldnt be detered by this.

BTW I think Mr Davis haas been watching too many crime dramas on TV, theer isnt as many serial killers as people would like to think.

Perhaps Mr Davis is looking to get quick support from people who are probably watching articles like the Huntley trial with interest.

However, debates about capital punishment come and go as you would have to produce fairly concrete proof for a jury not to beat themselves up over whether or not they are condeming the right person to their deaths. There have been cases where convictions have been overturned following the deaths

---

by JtB
Its intresting to see that this form of punishment would be used as a deterent to serial killers, These people arent exacty your average (is there such a thing) killer and wouldnt be detered by this.

---

Would it really be a deterent though? If a serial killer is insane enough to kill then would it really bother them? It could be seen as a quick way out as opposed to rotting in jail (not that people really rot in jail - boot camps would be preferencial )

I would imagine that many serial killers keep on going just trying to dodge being caught.

A bigger deterent would be Demolition Man style and having EVERYONE fingerprinted and DNA tested from birth. That way if you are likely to get pointed at within days of committing something (providing DNA evidence is found) than *that* would be impressive

---

by Samphirette
Perhaps Mr Davis is looking to get quick support from people who are probably watching articles like the Huntley trial with interest.

---

I don't think that should recieve any coverage in the press. Most murder trials don't even warrent a paragraph, yet this one's been turned into a national circus (one which I've done my damndest to avoid the details of).

Make anyone who wants to feed a vicarious hunger for the gruesome particulars go to the effort of aquiring the court records I say!

DNA testing ... I'm too tired to bang on about the civil liberties implications of that.

Ok no comment on the whole politics thing... But who would call their son David if their surname was Davis! Poor guy *snigger*

---

by Callum
Sydney, politics does interest me very much, what bores me is Byron's perpetual anti-Tory whinging. He frequently uses this site to espouse his personal political beliefs, which are often as biased, bigoted and prejudiced as those he proffesses to despise.

---

Well, it usually gets other people to post their opinions to 'counter' Byron's (which sounds like his intention, really) which makes for a nice "balanced" argument, which tends to be really interesting, if not a bit heated at times. Even though I don't tend to post on these, I usually quite like reading them, 'cos of all the conflicting arguments... [/ramble]

---

by Samphirette
Would it really be a deterent though? If a serial killer is insane enough to kill then would it really bother them?

---

Actually, I think that was JtB's point. Or maybe I misread, as it wasn't very clearly written (no offense meant, but I started off thinking the same as Sam), but the final phrase was "These people arent exacty your average (is there such a thing) killer and wouldnt be detered by this." [my emphasis]

---

by Byron
DNA testing ... I'm too tired to bang on about the civil liberties implications of that.

---

Well, I'm not. DNA testing for all citizens. Finger printing of all citizens. ID cards for all citizens. I oppose all of these for the same reasons. The high falluting way of putting it is as Byron said, they infringe my civil liberties. The presumption behind all of these measures is that we are guilty until proven innocent.

But more important than any of that, I just plain don't trust them government folks with that type of info or power. The idea that this information, or these tools would not be made available to internal monitoring agencies, that they wouldn't be used to track the movements of those not committing crimes, but just being a nuisance to the powers that be, I find .. unlikely. Whatever the colours are of the badges of that government's supporters.

Also, should you want to 'fit someone up' (and there is evidence of this still going on, with some shocking stuff happening in Wales particularly) how much easier is that if all you need to do is plant their DNA at the scene? No need to create motive to point the figure, just plant DNA, seeing as it is on record, and 'Justice' will do the rest.

We have to stop the paranoia about crime. Crime is bad, and happens too often. But not that often. Yet it seems to be taking over the national consciousness. To the extent that we want to give some very shady people even more power over our lives.

And seeing as it seems to be trendy here to use Sci Fi to back up our arguments, I'll end by saying that the whole issue reminds me of the Star Trek DS9 episode where everyone gets psyched out about the Founders/Shape Shifters attacking Earth. You Trekkies know what I'm talking about...

---

by Jayjay
(quotes)

Actually, I think that was JtB's point. Or maybe I misread, as it wasn't very clearly written (no offense meant, but I started off thinking the same as Sam)(quotes)

---

Cheers Jayjay, Yes thats what I meant I was probably drunk when I wrote it(well thats my excuse and i'm sticking to it)

---

by Jayjay
there is evidence of this still going on, with some shocking stuff happening in Wales particularly

---

ehwhatwhere?? What have I missed here? (NB, that's not meant to sound accusatory in any way at all, am merely enquiring, 'cause I'm curious...) Are you talking about the Clydach murders, or is there something else I'm not catching? Rather out of the loop, being stuck here in a foreign country an' all...

---

by Jayjay
You Trekkies know what I'm talking about...

---

muttermutternotatrekkiemutteramatrekkermuttershuffleblush

We're a dying breed. Treckie and proud.

Wales - recent piece by Panarama on some 'suspicious convictions', including one (the most recent) where all evidence pointed to two brothers, both members of the constabulary in that region. I'll see if I can dig up a link for y'all...

[and as if by magic...]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/3210674.stm

Which refers to the murder of a police wife (known to be involved in an affair with another woman) - Mandy Power. There are also links to a number of other unsafe convictions by this lot.

(Edited by Jayjay 05/12/2003 15:46)