leicsmac

Feel better soon mate, there's definitely lots of different bugs going round the area right now.

The US continuing to elect their best and brightest.

I'm sure he's allowed to donate in some fashion. I'm also sure he's not allowed to donate in the manner he would like in the same way anyone else is not allowed because political donation laws forbid it.

This is entirely possible. I guess we'll find out soon enough. Interesting times.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kez8d2dygo Trumpism, in all its self interested, future-disregarding (except for their own small clique), aggrandising glory, looking for a further foothold in the UK.

Same applies tbh. I think the idea in principle is sound, but in practice... ... which is why I said when the topic of the vote for it came up I said that I would most likely abstain.

And even if they don't, I'm pretty sure no guard system can be perfect all the time. And I'd bet it would only have to fail once.

Pardon the lack of clarity. I was making a point that dividing cases along the lines of degree of brutality in order to classify them as worthy of a death sentence as you advocate here (correct me if I'm wrong) would, in order to function, require perfect standard of proof and perfect attribution between that and a "lesser" instance on every single occasion. Some of the cases I list above may easily have satisfied the requirements you state at the time of their deliverance. And though the ability to source proof has improved massively, the whole process remains irrevocably human, and therefore imperfect. Can it be truly, honestly guaranteed that if the system you wish to implement is implemented, there will not be a mistake at some point in time, as humans almost inevitably do? To state again, I'm not actually against the idea selectively on the grounds that you state here on principle - I just feel, with good reason I think - that it would in practice inevitably at some point go wrong and an innocent person would pay the ultimate price for it. Whether someone thinks that is an acceptable cost is up to them. I do not.

Bridgewater Four. Birmingham Six. Oliver Campbell, to name a few There are many more wrongful murder convictions, historical and contemporary, where thought the guilt was thought ironclad, it was later shown to not be so. Again, don't get me wrong, I can see the arguments being made here, but I cannot find a system that might execute an innocent party and consider that a valid price to pay, no matter how slim the chance, in any way conscionable. It would need perfect attribution, nothing else. Absolutely perfect.

The belittling is, of course, deliberate on his part. The sooner he's locked in a room with a half dozen Canada geese for ten minutes, the sooner there can be damage limitation for the world. ... which would also require perfect attribution on the matter of distinguishing when a case is ironclad and has absolute proof (as this one is and does) or not. Can that also be guaranteed?

As are a lot of others, and they have a big point. But any potential solution is complex.

It's a theory that would at least buy time for the innocent, but then it still comes back to the principle that even where there's a statistically significant risk that the state is going to apply an absolute punishment, you're going to need absolute proof every time (which I honestly don't think is possible).

... because if it were a thing, it wouldn't just be used in this case. And, one day, inevitably, the UK state would execute an innocent person and that would be deemed acceptable as collateral cost for the applied system. Don't get me wrong, these people, in this case, I would shed no tears nor stand in anyone's way. But such things don't exist in a legal or policy vacuum.

Possibly. I can't support the DP for reasons I've gone into before, but with cases like this that opposition is seriously tested.

Bloody hell, is there a current headline/event in the ME that doesn't showcase religious and/or nationalist realpolitik in all its grubby, self interested, death-worshipping glory?

Which the Indian last pair have now made. Likely salvaged the draw now.

In a similar corner of the Earth, only way I can see there being a result is if the Aussies get this last Indian wicket before the follow on target.

In the end it played out mostly like a team chasing an impossible target usually does. Decent stand early doors but when that's broken things subside quickly. I have no idea why Stokes was bowled into the ground this Test.

So it would seem. As per above, I hope that I'm wrong about what's to come.

Thoughts and prayers and another backhander from the NRA, naturally.

Waiting for The Onion to post their sadly evergreen headline.

So it seems from looking at the figures. Yep, definitely Years and Years.

And more recently components and entire robotic missions out there have been conceived and designed at the University of Leicester Space Research Centre

Who is the smart money on if an election is called?