Brown intends to reclassify cannabis as a Class B drug, ruled out the construction of a supercasino in Manchester, promises to review 24-hour drinking laws with the possible intent of overturning them

So you're saying that Brown restricting the freedoms of native British citizens is a good thing? Might as well invite al Qaeda in to take over.

And your second item is pretty reprehensible too. Is justice meted out by courts or by criminals? You don't seem to care which. Perhaps you should make it legal to just murder anyone who looks foreign if you see them on the street. That's the kind of mob justice you're cheering for.

Dave

Yeah, I agree with Dave, especially on the second bit. I'm not sure more gambling and 24-hour drinking are that great a thing, however. But on the prisoner issue, perhaps Mark's been tokin' on too much of that cannabis Brown wants to declare a Class B drug.

Now, here's the absurdity of the reasoning: you are in effect arguing for one right for one group of people (the right to protection during incarceration), and another for another group (well, no rights).

The punishment in this case is deprivation of liberty, which has been decided by a judge and jury, not death, scarring or serious injury by scalding (what's next: hot oil). You know, too, that prisoners in Britain can seek compensation from the Government for injuries received in jail and often get it.

If you are going to deny medical treatment and state protection to the terrorist, you have to deny it to all the light-skinned ordinary crims as well, Mark.

Like I keep saying, the one good thing about Britain is that ALL people really do have rights, and one of those rights, no matter what anyone thinks of you, is the right not to be vilified.

Just a tip, and take it or leave it: You probably should be careful how you phrase some of this stuff, too, as you can't rely on 1st amendment rights over there. The police recently cracked down on two neo-nazi holocaust deniers on the web, judging that their rights to free speech were less important than the rights of those who were being vilified. It is still being dragged through the courts.

It's OK to have a point of view, but publicly suggesting that a scalded prisoner should be denied treatment because of his over-the-top religious beliefs might just have the potential to land you in, um, hot water ...

the first two comments say it all, pretty much

but allow yer gonzo to add this...

every time Manning types, the baby Jesus cries,

true story

Excelsior?

MEM: "What a country!"

Mark, BTW, as I know you're seriously unhappy there, I've phoned a couple of mates in London, and they've kindly offered to have a whip-around at the Punch and Judy next Friday night in the hope they can raise just enough to buy you a one-way ticket back to Boston.

Gonzo, Stan and Dave,

Enjoy Britain's "Marquis of Queensbury" rules for prisoners while you can, gents. But don't jut your jaws out too far when you lead with your chins. Your Wahhabi enemies won't land a sucker punch there. They'll grab your throats and slit them - just like they did to Daniel Pearl...

Ruvy..sorry, i refuse to sink to the level of an animal, i'm a free Man

and how we treat our Foe says much about our Character, and what we hold dear

just because a sociopathic vermin kills with no remorse, this does not give a civilized person leave to behave as the animal has, does it?

for all your pretensions to Holy high mindedness, much of your writings prove you are exactly the same as those you profess to hate so much

and this worries me, for you...

some fiend comes at me or mine, i defend myself according to my Principles...but one the Foe is disabled/incarcerated/under control...one does NOT do further harm

if we cannot be better than what we fight, then the Conflict is only about insignificant minutia

to me, and to our System of Law, this is self evident

to any sane Human, it should also be just as self evident...if it is not, than might i suggest said person is missing some crucial part of their Humanity... the same bit those criminals are missing

Excelsior?

Great post, MEM.

Multiculturalism - Had enough?

"Multiculturalism - Had enough?"

so, yer saying it should all be white, anglo-saxon protestants?

bet you like miracle whip on wonder bread sammiches too

/disappointed

Excelsior?

"how we treat our Foe says much about our Character, and what we hold dear"

Sooo...in WWII, the "Greatest Generation" (under the leadership of liberal Democrat FDR) were a bunch of murderous scum for nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, fire-bombing Dresden, and taking almost no prisoners on the Japanese-held Pacific islands?
(Oh, and internment camps for tens of thousands of Japanese on the Left Coast?)

In WWII, we were the good guys. And we used brutal measures in that war. And, guess what? We won.

In the War On Terror, we are the good guys. And we mostly play fuckin' footsie with the enemy. And, guess what? We're probably gonna lose (if we continue to fight it under the ACLU's rules).

If hot water being thrown on an al-Qaeda terrorist is a bad thing, then being bad is go-o-od.

"this does not give a civilized person leave to behave as the animal has, does it?"

Three things:

1) Humans are animals.

2) No animal except the human animal acts with the sort of cruelty and murderousness that the human animal is capable of.

3) If we cede to our enemies the ability to "fight dirty," there is no doubt that we will lose this war.

The terrorists are animals, yes. But so are we, by definition. And if their fighting/survival instinct is stronger than ours, they will win. It is literally not possible to fight a "humanitarian war." The only thing that matters once a nation (or a civilization) has decided to fight a war is victory. "Playing nice" with guns and tanks isn't a serious, or even a real, option.

RJ - Britain has been a multicultural society at least since the Celts arrived and - archaeological evidence suggests - even long before that. We'll be fine, thank you.

Stan - I suspect your word of caution to Mark about shooting his mouth off was somewhat tongue in cheek. However, in the event that he might not see it that way... Despite the lack of a written Bill of Rights, the boys from Special Branch won't be thumping on his door any time soon. English law (I'm not sure about the Scots, they can be deadly bastards sometimes) is quite happy to let moronic mouth-shooting take its course, and is usually smart enough to differentiate it from real hate speech.

RJ- did we torture prisoners?

try looking at the entire comment, do i not make a distinction between what is done in defense and what you do to a helpless prisoner?

you appear to have missed that

you mention the internment camps, again, we go tossing boiling water on em?...or waterboarding?

again, if you are willing to sink to the level of yoru Enemy, that what defines the difference?

how do you tell the "good guys" from the "bad guys" if both act the same?

Excelsior?

RJ, this prisoner was found guilty of a criminal offence in a court of law and by a jury after a swift and fair trial, and sentenced by a judge according to rule of law. He is therefore entitled to the same protections as all other crims in British jails - if he isn't, then rule of law begins to collapse, which is exactly what the other mob wants.

And for Gonzo: I fair dinkum sometimes wonder what the fu.k MEM's on about, or even whether he actually knows himself. While he probably does want the place to be more WASPish or WACish ... the truth is, despite Britain's grudging, pretentious nod towards multi-culturalism because of the considerable baggage of post-colonial guilt, you still won't find a higher WASPS/WACS-to-others ratio anywhere on this planet (apart from Scandinavia and Australia).

Blue eyes, fair skin and a near fatal attraction to both tea and warm beer are still very much the norm in Albion and its surrounds. Anyone who's lived there and says otherwise is talkin' through their arse.

fucking hell, RJ...try thinking in more than a soundbyte and putting it all in one comment?

on the "animals" part

sorry, for the slow of mind, allow me to clarify..when i said "animals" i meant sociopathic criminals...when i say "Men" i mean civilized human beings with a code of Ethics

i'll try and keep it simple for your RJ

Excelsior?

Doc, there's been a case recently that is seen as a test case, with two blokes arrested and charged for carrying on over the internet. True, Special Branch won't likely be knocking on Mark's door anytime soon, but you can bet they ARE watching him :) Dah, duh-dah, duh-dah ...

"so, yer saying it should all be white, anglo-saxon protestants?"

Do you have some sort of problem with White Anglo-Saxon Protestants?

Because that's who made up 95% of the UK (one of the richest and most powerful nations in the world) until recently. And, until very recently, the UK didn't have unassimilated ethnic groups whining about the slaughter of a diseased cow, or hundreds of thousands of unassimilated Islamic radicals (some of whom are terrorists) living in their midst.

Tell me: Where are your demands that Iran and Saudi Arabia allow mass immigration of English-speaking Christians into their country? English-speaking Christians who want to build countless Christian churches and live off SA's welfare system, while having absolutely no interest in assimilating into the SA culture?

Why is mass immigration always a one-way street?

lol..you keep trying to put words into my mouth in order to make me look bad, still trying to get your junior Limbaugh card?

i've got nothing against ANY culture, i'm an American..we have no "culture"...we pick and choose, add and subtract what we like on an individual basis

but it's funny the way you put it, where do you draw the line...are Catholics ok? how about those third generation Hindus who are as English as anyone but not CoE?

you should really think this shit through before typing

Excelsior?

"how do you tell the "good guys" from the "bad guys" if both act the same?"

Uh, because "we" are us and "they" are them.

I guess the old saying is true: "A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel."

RJ - did we torture prisoners?

For the most part (at least in the Pacific), we didn't bother to take them.

you mention the internment camps, again, we go tossing boiling water on em?...or waterboarding?

No, because they weren't convicted (or even really suspected) terrorists.

And anyway, waterboarding is 100% non-fatal. Unlike a beheading.

I'd never tell you to sink to the level of an animal, Gonzo. I know how you value your Principles. I'm just warning you not to lead too far with the chin in doing so.

It strikes me that on occasion the very barbaric justice meted out by prisoners is more fitting than the weasel words of the lawyers who get them in prison.

They seem to recognize an enemy - and are determined to down him. That's a vicious way to play the game. But the Wahhabi have been more vicious.

Yeah, my memory of Britain as a schoolboy is that it was multicultural even then. Not much has changed. Try looking up the ratio of what to whom and you'll find it's still pretty close to what's it's been the start of post-colonial immigration.

Plus, there are plenty of blacks and asians (in the UK, that means from the Indian sub-continent) who were born in the UK, some of them British going back three or four or more generations, and who are as English as Jason Robinson (look him up on google).

This whole thing is an absolute load of old bollocks. My tip for MEM is to go back to the US, where we know there are no racial/multicultural tensions, am I right?

Recent poll of British Muslims:

YouGov sought to gauge the character of the Muslim community's response to the events of July 7. As the figures in the chart show, 88 per cent of British Muslims clearly have no intention of trying to justify the bus and Tube murders.

However, six per cent insist that the bombings were, on the contrary, fully justified.

Six per cent may seem a small proportion but in absolute numbers it amounts to about 100,000 individuals who, if not prepared to carry out terrorist acts, are ready to support those who do.

Moreover, the proportion of YouGov's respondents who, while not condoning the London attacks, have some sympathy with the feelings and motives of those who carried them out is considerably larger - 24 per cent.

A substantial majority, 56 per cent, say that, whether or not they sympathise with the bombers, they can at least understand why some people might want to behave in this way.

Multiculturalism - Had enough?

Ruvy - it appears to slip some minds that not only am i ex-military, but have been a practicing martial artist for 38 years

i'm all for defending oneself..as an individual, or a nation, it's all in how it's done

RJ - "I guess the old saying is true: "A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel.""

i would dearly enjoy showing you just how wrong you are in your misconception...best of three on the mat, or until you learn your lesson...which ever you would enjoy more...i'll even let you use a baseball bat and wear a motorcycle helmet...but you will have to sign a waiver

afterwards you can use the sip and puff to say how much this "liberal" doesn't defend himself

you're just being silly now, and not even amusing

Excelsior?

Ethnicity in Great Britain:

For most of the last millennium the lands now constituting the United Kingdom were largely inhabited by indigenous peoples. Since World War Two substantial immigration from the New Commonwealth and beyond has transformed the ethnic landscape so that the United Kingdom now plays host to an ethnically diverse population. Alongside the indigenous population, descended from peoples present prior to the Twelfth century, there are significant numbers of non-indigenous Whites, Blacks, South Asians, Orientals and other groups together with a growing mixed race population.

...

The period from 1948 has seen a dramatic change in the ethnic make-up of the United Kingdom. Non-Whites have grown from tens of thousands in 1951 to 4,600,000 in 2001. The total number of ethnic minorities (including whites from ethnic minority groups) in 2001 was 6,751,689.

The indigenous population is in numerical decline, falling by 100,000 between 2001-2003, whereas the non-indigenous population grew by an estimated 500,000. Since 2003 this pattern of alternate decline and growth will have accelerated. The process seems likely to continue, leading to the eventual replacement of the indigenous population with the newer groups.

...

In 2005 the Commission for Racial Equality published a report entitled Citizenship and Belonging : What is Britishness?, to examine the way in which British people of different ethnic backgrounds thought about Britishness. The Commission reported that:

"As White people involved in the study were asked to talk about Britishness, many immediately and spontaneously changed the topic of discussion slightly talking instead about a perceived decline in Britishness. This happened in all focus groups with White people. They attributed the decline to four main causes: the arrival of large numbers of migrants; the 'unfair' claims made by people from ethnic minorities on the welfare state; the rise in moral pluralism; and the failure to manage ethnic minority groups properly, due to what participants called political correctness."

And that: "Most White participants were distressed by this perceived decline in Britishness. They felt victimized and frustrated and many anticipated that social unrest would become inevitable."

Yeah, you're right. I'm crazy.

i would dearly enjoy showing you just how wrong you are in your misconception...best of three on the mat, or until you learn your lesson...which ever you would enjoy more...i'll even let you use a baseball bat and wear a motorcycle helmet...but you will have to sign a waiver

afterwards you can use the sip and puff to say how much this "liberal" doesn't defend himself

Gonzo! You actually make my point for me! Thanks!!!

Let's say you, a "progressive-minded" Westerner, shows up for a "fair and regulated fight" with an Islamic extremist. You are a better wrestler than him, so because of your extreme sense of "fairness" you allow him to wear a helmet and bring a bat. Despite the advantages you have ceded to him, you are able to pin him. But, just as you are about to declare victory in this "fair" fight and shake his hand, he whips a scimitar out of his gym bag and beheads your lib-left ass for everyone to see.

Of course, you would have never even considered such a thing!

Sooo...who wins that fight, Gonzo? You tell me...

"The total number of ethnic minorities (including whites from ethnic minority groups) in 2001 was 6,751,689."

Of a total population of 60 million-plus. And don't forget, that includes whites from ethnic minority groups.

I would bet the total number of muslims is quite small in relation to that total 7 million.

Last time I was there, most people I saw had blue eyes and fair hair, which at a rough guess probably means they are anglo-saxon or anglo-celtic and aren't from an ethnic minority.

Like I say, it's all bollocks.

The western country that has the highest number of foreign-born residents is Australia, with 25 per cent overall.

The US couldn't be that far behind either, what with millions of pesky dark skinned Mexicans flooding across the border and ruining all that wonderful, pearly white southern blood over the next few generations.

Anyway, what constitutes a Brit? It's not colour, it's attitude - and they get that from rule of law and institutions of governance, not from some half-arsed notion that only white people can be civilised.

As for who's best thought of as a British citizen, how long's a piece of string?? The clue isn't in the colour of your skin.

Ruvy: "Enjoy Britain's 'Marquis of Queensbury' rules for prisoners while you can, gents. But don't jut your jaws out too far when you lead with your chins. Your Wahhabi enemies won't land a sucker punch there. They'll grab your throats and slit them - just like they did to Daniel Pearl..."

Nicely put, Ruvy. Nicely put.

Gonzo: "and how we treat our Foe says much about our Character, and what we hold dear"

Gonzo, you once told me that you'd gladly strangle Osama with your own hands if he was brought to you. Can you be serious about that? After all, that's sinking to the level of an animal and you're a "free Man"!

Re: Shambo...The point about biosecurity was that WAG had made a big issue about the need for such security but when it came to the crunch totally disregarded their concerns and left a car park, outside of the Temple, filled with people, strewn with "contaminated" straw...........public health risk? I don't think so

STM: "[T]he one good thing about Britain is that ALL people really do have rights, and one of those rights, no matter what anyone thinks of you, is the right not to be vilified."

Stan, it's not a matter of what one THINKS of Barot; it's a FACT that he planned the massacre of thousands with "dirty bombs." And yet you stipulate that he has the right to not be vilified -- and then accuse me of partaking in the weed? Wow!

"Blue eyes, fair skin and a near fatal attraction to both tea and warm beer are still very much the norm in Albion and its surrounds."

But will it stay that way? By 2050, all these traits you mention will very much be in the minority, of this I'm confident -- unless our immigration policy changes and quickly (i.e., no letting in criminals and terrorists under the convenient term "asylum seeker"). Besides, Stan, admit it: It's all so easy to harp on about what an unbridled joy it is to live in a multicultural England while living in what's very likely a lily-white community as indeed most Australians do. Besides, I don't have a problem with people of other ethnicities or creeds. We Americans are mutts, I'm used to dealing with people that are considerably different than me. But none of them wanted to kill me, my friends, my family, my colleagues, etc. and I didn't have to read about the vast swathes of communities across the country that either encourage this ideology or profess nonchalance about it. Radical Islam can never take foot in America because they know we're vigilant and will start kicking ass before it can ever take root. England, however, has already lost the fight and it'll only continue to get far worse.

"I've phoned a couple of mates in London, and they've kindly offered to have a whip-around at the Punch and Judy next Friday night in the hope they can raise just enough to buy you a one-way ticket back to Boston."

As much as I'd love to accept the offer, tell your friends to keep their money instead so they can binge-drink themselves silly and chant soccer anthems all night long as most Brits love to do ... I'm here for my wife who has her reasons for staying (I won't go into them because it's no-one else's business), and so I stay here with her. But, trust me, if, God forbid, she were taken away from me, I would definitely be heading back Stateside as I would no longer have reason for remaining -- nor would I want to.

RJ: "If hot water being thrown on an al-Qaeda terrorist is a bad thing, then being bad is go-o-od."

Exactly. I'm very glad to see that you refused to drink the Kool-Aid, RJ.

As a practicing martial artist, you should recognize that your values are not necessarily those of your opponents. That is the precise issue here. In fact, your values are considerably higher and more to be admired than those animals who would slaughter you as nothing more than a kaffir. And as a practicing martial artist, you should be aware that strength comes not from power, but from the the discipline and concentration exercised in using power.

The Wahhabi who would murder you off are very much known for their bloodthirstiness. They have power, but lack any discipline in its use. The terrorist who was scalded was dealt with by people of your civilization who lack discipline as well. If they were truly disciplined, the prisoners wouldn't have scalded the bastard - they would have killed him.

That is cold blooded - but my enemies view me as one who must be exterminated. I'm only returning the favor in my own viewpoint.

"It's all so easy to harp on about what an unbridled joy it is to live in a multicultural England while living in what's very likely a lily-white community as indeed most Australians do."

I don't suggest it's an unbridled joy, although the Poms seem to have accepted the multicultural mix if their bizarre love of vindaloo and chips is any indication.

All I'm trying to say here, Mark, is that as much as we all hate Barot and what he stands for, under the rule of law that is so vital to the well-being of us all, you can't have one rule for one and another rule for another.

I feel the same way about Barot and his ilk as any other sane person, but the reality is: British justice (and it IS good justice Mark, and you know it) has taken its course and jailed the mongrel.

Once that's happened, it's incumbent upon the authorities to make sure that he's treated the same as everyone else, and under the very same law that tracked him down, arrested him, charged him and jailed him for life, he is entitled to the same rights of protection as any other convicted and jailed crim in a UK jail.

Simply, it has to be that way or any notion of civilised order begins to rot from head down.

And I wouldn't exactly describe where I live as a lily-white community. Mate, you need to check your facts about the racial mix in Australia before making those kinds of comments.

No, Stan, I don't know anything good about this namby-pamby politically correct mush known as British justice. I know what's good about American justice -- because we don't fuck around (hence, Gitmo) -- but British justice? It's an absolute joke. I'll say it again, Britain has already lost the fight and it will continue to get much worse. I just cross my fingers and hope for the best every day I'm still alive. And I lose sleep over it.

And, incredibly, you propose that I'm being watched by British intelligence and that I, and not some Islamofanatic piece of shit, will be seen as the real enemy just for saying what NORMAL people are thinking? And I'm supposed to take British "justice" seriously?

Stan, I take it you wear a hat down under, but if I didn't know any better, I'd say the antipodean sun has fried your brains.

And Australia is not nearly as multiculti as Britain or America -- not even by half. Yes, it is, a bit, but not greatly so.

Ruvy: "The terrorist who was scalded was dealt with by people of your civilization who lack discipline as well. If they were truly disciplined, the prisoners wouldn't have scalded the bastard - they would have killed him."

I'm with you, Ruvy. 110 percent. Scalding the bastard didn't go far enough. Maybe when he's put back in prison, they'll finish the job. Dave, Stan and Gonzo may lose sleep over it, but you and I certainly won't.

Gonzo (to RJ): "i would dearly enjoy showing you just how wrong you are in your misconception...best of three on the mat, or until you learn your lesson...which ever you would enjoy more...i'll even let you use a baseball bat and wear a motorcycle helmet...but you will have to sign a waiver."

Whoa, easy there, tough guy. Everyone here knows you're no pansy-ass, though, given the way you get your knickers in a twist over the fate of some rama-lama-ding-dong-head, one could be forgiven for thinking that you were.

I thought that it was established common law....er - common knowledge...that terrorists and child molesters don't survive the general population in prison unscarred

much to be said for Coventry...best if televised

btw - fear and hate are carcinogens...some folk on this thread should seek oncological assistance asap

...almost forgot - Shambo is smiling on us for the act of mercy

for RJ - "Let's say you, a "progressive-minded" Westerner, shows up for a "fair and regulated fight" with an Islamic extremist. You are a better wrestler than him, so because of your extreme sense of "fairness" you allow him to wear a helmet and bring a bat. Despite the advantages you have ceded to him, you are able to pin him. But, just as you are about to declare victory in this "fair" fight and shake his hand, he whips a scimitar out of his gym bag and beheads your lib-left ass for everyone to see.

Of course, you would have never even considered such a thing!

Sooo...who wins that fight, Gonzo? You tell me..."

umm...you still lose, even with the scimitar...YOU miss the point, there's never a fair fight, and i expect you to pull a gun out of your underwear...as long as we start on the mat, in arms reach...it doesn't matter...you should stick to talking about things you know about

for Manning - YOU also miss the point...did you neglect the part in this very thread where i distinguish between the time of Conflict and the time when you have a helpless prisoner?

in the case of bin Laden, it would be in the time of Conflict, i also clearly stated at the time that i would accept personal Responsibility for my actions...still would

again, big differences in how you deal with something during a Conflict, and how you deal with a helpless prisoner in your complete Power

unfortunately, some just don't appear to comprehend the fact and are willing to be just a rabid an animal (from a good safe distance) as the Foe

Excelsior?

"how do you tell the "good guys" from the "bad guys" if both act the same?"

Uh, because "we" are us and "they" are them.

By far the most disturbing post so far. If we're all basically acting the same (with cruelty), doesn't that make us equally bad? Being "us" doesn't automatically make us the good guys. The good guy is the one who acts with compassion and regardless of the circumstance.

For hate is not conquered by hate: hate is conquered by love. This is a law eternal. -- Buddha

Violence ended by violence is just an armistice, not peace.

Should have read:

compassion and justice regardless of the circumstance.

I am not advocating helplessness or the idea that we should not defend ourselves, but that the goal is peace, not armistice.

Australia is not nearly as multiculti as Britain or America -- not even by half. Yes, it is, a bit, but not greatly so.

Mark, have you ever been to Australia? If your answer is "yes", then you must either have spent all your time in Wunelluva Creek, Queensland, or been walking around with your eyes closed.

"For hate is not conquered by hate: hate is conquered by love. This is a law eternal. -- Buddha"

Quoted for Truth

and allow me to add...

"do unto others and you would have others do unto you" - Yeshua ben Miriam

nuff said...

Excelsior?

RJ #24:

I'm sorry, but this is one of those instances where Wikipedia is talking out of its bottom. "Indigenous" is not a simile for "white".

Depending on where you draw the timeline, it could be argued that the British Isles doesn't even have an indigenous population. It's true that after the upheavals of the Norman Conquest, the ethnic mix remained fairly stable until the last century, but there were always small-scale migrations going on (Jews, Huguenots, Gypsies, Chinese etc).

But even with the large scale invasions - the Celts, the Romans, the Danes, the Saxons (and allied peoples) and finally the Normans, all of which caused huge upheavals and transformed British society forever, the sky did not fall. These changes have made Britain what it is today. In my view, it's all the stronger for it.

It helps if you view the current influx of peoples from across the globe as part of that process.

"Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker." - Nietzsche

Re #18;
"I guess the old saying is true: "A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel."

And how about this one: "A conservative will always support a war...as long as someone else does the fighting."

Having read both sides of the debate, I'll have to side with Ruvy, MEM, & RJ on this one: when you're talking about vicious criminals, whether terrorists or child molesters or rapists or serial murderers, their very predilictions have rendered them beyond being regarded as human & having the same rights & privileges as everyone else, & their crimes have rendered them null & void as far as being entitled to protections - from anybody. The law throughout most of the Western countries is barbarically soft & wimpish on criminals who have committed violent acts, & seldom metes out actual justice. Most of them receive what is virtually a slap on the wrist, & then are remanded to so-called prisons where they receive far better food, lodging, exercise, tutoring, medical treatment, & various other perks, than those citizens who live peacefully & obey the laws. The gross unfairness & injustice of this is obvious. IMO, prison should be synonymous with punishment - NOT so-called rehabilitation or coddling. As for prisoners rights, IMO there is no such thing. You violate the law seriously enough to go to prison, you should forfeit your rights. All of them.

I just can't get very concerned or upset about someone trying to inflict a little well-earned pain on some skank terrorist, whatever his color or creed.

Do you never know when to shut up? Your ignorance seems to be permanently on parade.

One of the cornerstones of modern conservatism is a fundamental opposition to interventionist foreign policy and wars in general.

This whole interventionist/nationbuilding impulse is anything but conservative.

Dave

Just who are you addressing, Dave?

rj, mem--you two are reveling in the torture of another individual, and you are licking your chops at the possibility of his violent death. you're no better than he is, and you don't have the excuse of being brainwashed by your religion. you're just naturally that way.

so, you deserve whatever he does. i wish all the haters in the world could figure out just who it is that hates them back. and then they could just go after each other and leave us sane people alone.

nancy: "when you're talking about vicious CHRISTIANS, their very predilictions have rendered them beyond being regarded as human & having the same rights & privileges as everyone else, & their crimes have rendered them null & void as far as being entitled to protections - from anybody."

i switched a word. so, you see. you. no. better.

bubba: "well, looky he'ah, cletus, we gots ourselves a reah live negrah!"

cletus: "well, whut's he doin' he'ah, bubba?"

bubba: "he done violatedud that law whut says ya cain't 'tend on murd'rin' no white folks."

cletus [to "negrah"]: "you heared whut miss judge nancy says 'bout such thangs, didn't ya, negrah?"

bubba: "miss judge nancy says [in nancy's voice] "'You violate the law seriously enough to go to prison, you should forfeit your rights. All of them.'"

cletus: "dat's most certunlay raight, bubba. now whut should we do wit dis he'ah negrah?"

bubba: "well, cletus, ah don't raightly know. maybe we should just do whutever we feel likes."

cletus: "whut's that word? 'creative?' yup. negrah, we's about to get 'creative' on you."

bubba: "yup."

cletus: "yup."

bubba: "yup."

cletus: "yup."

bubba: "we's gunna 'metes out actual justice,' as miss nancy like to say."

cletus: "oh, ah like "metesin.' gives me the willies what whenever ah do. and how."

bubba and cletus [both giving a satisfied sigh]: "'metesin...'"

Zing, I apply it to white christians as well. Anybody & everybody.

Actually, the parties I had in mind were a couple of white US-born serial killers, not Brit muslims.

well, it's just too bad you decided to apply it first to a muslim. and my point wasn't that you are a racist. notice it's not you saying those things. it's that your words can justify hate-fueled torture and killing.

you're playing god, nancy, and it's a very ugly thing to watch.

if you apply it to everybody, you apply it to everybody, and you can expect no better for yourself.

if it's only violent criminals, well, just look at all those who were put on death row and then exonnerated.

you may just kill an innocent person. you may just be tortured and killed yourself one day.

Considering how many times I've damned Bush & Cheney on this website, & wished someone would gun them down, I wouldn't be surprised if I were.

MY point is, there comes a point when you have to stop being sympathetic to or expecting 'human' responses from those who have none. These individuals are just as psychopathic as the ones in the White House - only they don't kill on the scale Bush & Cheney do by proxy. Anyone capable of carrying out the kind of conscienceless mayhem of a serial killer, child molester, or terrorist (or BushCo for that matter) is NOT operating on human mores, & has no capacity for it, either. In any event, comes a time when however noble your goals or impulses, if you don't fight fire with fire, you're gonna get fried to a crisp. So...you end up a noble crisp, but just as dead. Sorta makes the nobility aspect kind of pointless & futile. In short, you don't deal with a komodo dragon as if it were a puppy dog. It ain't, it won't become one, & most important, it doesn't WANT to be one, either.

"there comes a point when you have to stop being sympathetic to or expecting 'human' responses from those who have none."

um. maybe there is, but you don't have to stoop to their level. you get disgusted, but you don't become disgusting yourself.

"Anyone capable of carrying out the kind of conscienceless mayhem of a serial killer, child molester, or terrorist (or BushCo for that matter) is NOT operating on human mores, & has no capacity for it, either"

and neither does/is someone who tortures an unarmed person and then wishes for their violent death...

"if you don't fight fire with fire, you're gonna get fried to a crisp."

right. true. but this is a guy in prison who got cornered by several individuals and burned. he's the one who got fried, quite literally, and he is not a threat anymore. he's in jail.

in a real fight, you are correct. but this is just torture. and it's sick.

no one is talking about a fair fight here. it kind of changes the rules a bit. in a fair fight, everything is fair. you give back what you are given.

when you back an unarmed man into a corner, surround him with angry, hate-filled men, and then throw scalding water on him, to the point where...

holy shit. did you even read the link? did mark? it wasn't just boiling water. it was BOILING OIL. he had to have an operation and is scarred for the rest of his life, which he will spend being gangraped and constantly harassed. isn't that enough? for fuck's sake, remember you're a human being, and so is he.

Nancy..it's not about whether the person in jail is human...it's about the Jailor himself, and the Society he represents

i'm with you on detesting many types of criminal behavior, but we...as a Society, have to be better than the criminals we incarcerate, or what Right do we have to cage them or Judge them?

i guess this is one we just have ti disagree on

Excelsior?

Gonzo,

Please note that I do not davka condone this barbaric behavior in a prison. But most prisoners represent a threat to the peace and good order of a given society. These terrorists represent a threat to the society itself.

There is a fundamental difference between the one threat and another. As for the Jailor and the Society he represents, his Society, if it fails to defend itself against existential threats, will fall.

Nelson Mandela spent about three decades in prison, but from the inside of that prison exercised an immense amount of influence. This is beginning to happen here today with Jonathan Pollard, who from his American prison cell, exercises influence here.

Think about what I'm telling you. This is all on top the very basic differences in fundamental values between these Wahhabi terrorists and yourself.

Ruvy - you also appear to miss the simple declarative where i state the difference between Defending yourself, and holding a helpless Prisoner in your (society's)care

you see some kind of threat to society, i see a tiny fraction of the world's population trying to pretend they matter much more than they really do by extravagant criminal behavior

to treat them as anything more than that gives them the Power they so desperately seek...but thinking of them as anything more than psychotic criminals with a political Agenda, you advance their Agenda, imo

hence my position, which i am pretty certain you understand

Excelsior?

Nancy,

Your argument that terrorists, child molesters and similar monsters deserve extreme punishment (torture, basically) because they are criminally incorrigible makes no sense. The degree of punishment, be it a sheltered prison cell or the waterboards of Guantanamo, is irrelevant because sociopaths don't understand that what they did to merit it is wrong.

So punishing a sociopath is pointless. Its only purpose is to make those offended against feel better. As gonzo so astutely points out, what does it say about the souls of the jailer and his society if it pleases us to commit wanton cruelty as heinous as, or worse than, the criminal's?

MEM: "And Australia is not nearly as multiculti as Britain or America -- not even by half. Yes, it is, a bit, but not greatly so."

Bollocks. That statement only confirms my belief that a great part of what you write is, with respect, unresearched bullsh.t. I won't go so far as pure unadulterated twaddle, but sometimes it looks close. You have no concept of your own justice system either if you think it's any different to the British one. They are virtually identical, and Guantanamo is a bit of bullsh.t incvented by the Bush administration.

It's a kangaroo court. Granted, most of the people there are scumbags, but in dispensing with Habeus Corpus, Bush has made a mockery of American Justice. That is why Tony Blair (and good on him) made sure the Pom detainees were taken home. This ain't Nazi Germany.

I digress, though .... on the other point, one in four Australians is from somewhere else - Asia being a huge component of that figure. The place is full of Pacific Islanders, people from all parts of Europe, the Middle East, South Africa and other parts of Africa ...

25 per cent. That's one in every four Australians born somewhere else. As DD says, if you were ever here, and I suspect you weren't, you must have walked around with your eyes closed.

One in four foreign-born makes us more multicultural than any other western society. So I do know what I'm talking about when it comes to this stuff. It hasn't made this place worse either. IMO it's a better place for all its immigrants.

Mark: Having said all that though, I respect your right to hold an opinion that's contrary to mine - diametrically opposed even.

That's the beauty of the place you are living, and if you were honest with yourself, you'd see that what George Bush (and international cronies like John W. Howard) is doing at the moment is slowly chipping away at that fundamental right.

Sadly, you don't seem to be able to see the wood for the trees. I'll say again, you are lucky to be living in the UK. I'll be there is three weeks. Stay tuned and I'll let you know if anything changes my opinions.

Gonzo,

The funny thing about facts is that they are like diamonds - they are multi-faceted; what you see depends on which facet of the diamond you look through.

That this terrorist was attacked the way he was indicates that the prisoners in the prison he was in are anything but helpless. Helpless people cannot get hold of scalding water or oil with ease. To characterize this terrorist - or his prison mates who attacked him - as "helpless" is a gross distortion of reality worthy of a good attorney. Following your arguments here tell me you may have missed your Calling.

Seriously, though, to follow the analogy a bit further, the treatment this terrorist got while recuperating in hospital - "receiving round-the-clock police protection while there" accomplishes exactly what you complain my view of them does, by giving "them the Power they so desperately seek... and advancing their Agenda."

Eventually, Nelson Mndela, from his prison cell, was able to bring down the rotting apartheid régime in Suid Afrika. That is what these terrorist bastards in Britain would love to do as well - and as Mr. Manning points out, the Brits in power are helping them along.

Ruvy, the round-the-clock police guard wasn't so much to protect Barot from others as to protect others from him. Standard practice when a dangerous prisoner is receiving hospital treatment.

What would you have had them do: leave the bugger alone so that he could discharge himself and disappear as soon as he could walk?

And I believe Mr Mandela approached things a little differently than Barot and his ilk. Not a good analogy.

Ruvy - the way you deal with the Gem is to look at the whole thing, NOT just peer through a fraction or fractal

to wit - "helpless"

those prisoners are indeed helpless, in the Power of the State, and THAT is the helplessness i speak of..yes they can hurt each other, even occasionally a guard...

but the State can place them in solitary, beat, drug, deprive of food..or any other abuse they can think of, even killing them...THIS is the helplessness of a prisoner and the Responsibility of the Jailer

you keep bringing up Mandela...allow me to remind you that out of billions of Prisoners over the centuries, Mandela stands almost alone..and that his wife accomplished much of the progress to end Apartheid in many ways

protecting a helpless human being from being abused more while recuperating from being scaled with boiling oil is hardly a giving Power to anyone, it's doing the humane and Responsible thing...what Power did the helpless, burned man have?

you are really reaching here, Ruvy, and allowing your intense hatred cloud your good sense as well as your Humanity, imo

flip the script...put an Israeli in a prison and have him scalded by prisoners...would you not insist that the recuperating man be guarded for his own safety? even a criminal?

back to Mandela...in his case you are talking about a man who represented the Ideals of a majority of the population struggling against an unfair regime...a far cry from a terrorist in Britain, who obviously does not even have support amongst other criminals...so again, your Analogy is fallacious

and wash yer mouth out with soap for even thinking me and lawyer in the same breath...

be safe and well., my Best to you and yours

Excelsior?

Sorry, but taking the high moral road doesn't do anything except put yourself & other innocent people in danger from those who have no morals.

When I was in basic training, I was taught by my MSgt that there is no such thing as a fair fight. So the one time I got the drop on him, once he was down, I kicked him in the chops, followed by the gazongas to make sure he stayed down.

Once he recovered, he didn't flatten me like I was afraid he would if he caught me. Instead he gave me his best congrats, because as he said, I had learned the most basic fact: there is no such thing as a "fair fight" ... except in a boxing ring. Certainly not in combat, war, or any other adversarial exercise, including in the courtroom, obviously. The ONLY way there can be a fair fight is if both/all contestants hold to the same standards. Which in this case, they most certainly don't. Hence, whatever it takes, do it. If it means going lower, so be it. After all, fear is a powerful deterrant. For years, no one dared to attack the Russians, because everyone was scared stiff knowing they'd be creamed when - not if - the russkies caught up with them. Only the internal collapse of Soviet Russia allowed conditions to deteriorate to such a degree that the Chechens would dare to actually start attacking Russian targets - & even now, they do it with extreme caution, knowing the reprisals will be savage WHEN - not IF - they come. Nuff said.

Nancy, do please read this again

BIG difference between the Fight, and a helpless, captured prisoner

got it?

do what is needed to defend yourself, take the Foe out

but when he is down and handcuffed, you can't kick him in the head...when you have defeated him, and placed him in jail, you can't go torturing and abusing him

otherwise you are NO better than he is...just another criminal

hope that helps

Excelsior?

As long as this guy is breathing, he's not helpless. He still has his mind, & his mouth. He can still make plans, & transmit them to others. When he's braindead, plain dead, or unconscious, he'll be a "helpless prisoner"; not until or unless. Sorry. No quarter.

i guess there's just no reaching some folks

Nancy - what makes you different than them, then?

this example is IN PRISON, what more do you want?

or do we just execute all criminals? where does it stop, instant execution for jaywalking? or for dissent against the Administration on a blog?

think it through

Excelsior?

Nancy, are you sure you're not Judge Hershey in disguise?

Dave