Presidency?

What’s the issue with having a USB port, out of interest?

Cos cons aren’t allowed access to any type of digital storage, like memory sticks & stuff.

I think I did query it at some point but IIR all I got from security was, ‘theyr’e just not’.

There will be a valid & explainable reason. Maybe someone on here would know better than an HMPS security dept!

Cheers.

TBF, it’s probably best to come at it from the position of “reasons why they can” rather than “reasons why they can’t.”  Even if you can’t justify a specific issue, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a loophole they could exploit.

Cons are very (what’s the word?) ‘adaptive/cunning/studious’? & can always find a use for anything theyr’e allowed to have. Usually breaking prison rules in the process.

I think I did query it at some point but IIR all I got from security was, ‘theyr’e just not’.

It will be to do with blocking transfer of info in and out of choky. We have similar restrictions in the financial sector, probably to get the traders ready for conditions inside.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-44861508

I take it all back. Bring back the death penalty. Hangings too good for him I tells ya.

^ Why not make him wear a horned helmet, kick his arse and set him running up the high street.  Then charge a load of drunken Brits and Aussies to run in front of him before trapping him in a stadium and sticking blades in his shoulders?

You are part timer Malvern. You are suggesting that AFTER the guilty verdict. That should really have been suggested at the first whiff of suspicion.

See, your ‘basic’ murderer like him doesn’t really warrant the death sentence (IMO)

The fact that he’s a politician (of any party AFAIC)…well that’s a different matter.

Multiple murderers, rapists, paedo’s etc, get rid.

Man throws baby out of window after trying to gouge out it’s eyes and trying to strangle it.

Bring it back for these types.

No

Hang the nonces. Or anyone that **** about with kids…..

And the serial killers.

And ebikers.

1: it is self-evidently stupid to suggest that the crime of murder can be punished by the re-performance of same.

2: prison is partly for the sequestration of those who are a danger to society, having shown themselves to be.

3: I offer the treatment, subsequent to his crime, of Anders Breivik by the Norwegian authorities, as evidence of an enlightened society.

1: it is self-evidently stupid to suggest that the crime of murder can be punished by the re-performance of same.

Thing is woppit, that some people are suggesting the death penalty for cases which are not murder. The example above by Phil is of a baby that survived. The perpetrator was convicted of attempted murder, ABH  and common assault and received a life sentence.

The other one I have seen with a clamour for the death penalty was of the person convicted of manslaughter relating to the first acid attack case.

100% yes. It woukd need to be proved beyond doubt though.

100% yes. It woukd need to be proved beyond doubt though.

What level of doubt? Reasonable doubt? Unequivocal doubt? Might be hard to get a conviction with a higher degree of certainty required.

Bring it back for people who spit chewing gum on to the ground and/or flick their cigarette butts on to the ground.

I would be for it. But it would never be implemented properly, the bill would never get wrote up correctly or at all. The loop holes upon loop holes and court in’s and out’s would just not make it work at all. Our government is to incompetent to organise something on this scale. Give it maybe 50 years or so when we go to dystopian levels and we will be picking each other off anyway.

If we had the death penalty the Birmingham six who are innocent would be dead

How many innocent people hung is acceptable?

What level of doubt? Reasonable doubt? Unequivocal doubt? Might be hard to get a conviction with a higher degree of certainty required.

You mean like if they have video evidence of the killing or if the body is found in the back of the car kind?

and we are off again!! Same arguments, same reasons and same conclusions…

except the pope has joined in now

<div class=”bbp-reply-author”>xcracer1
<div class=”bbp-author-role”>
<div class=””>Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class=”bbp-reply-content”>

100% yes. It woukd need to be proved beyond doubt though.

</div>

You mean like the Birmingham six?  Proved beyond reasonable doubt.  Now we know they were innocent.

Read up on other cases like stephen downing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Downing_case

Or do you want a new category.  We have “beyond reasonable doubt”! for criminal cases.  How do you go beyond this?  “Beyond any doubt at all”?   Would you accept your son being wrongly hung for a crime they didn’t commit?

You do realise that ” beyond any doubt at all” would mean zero convictions?

You mean like if they have video evidence of the killing or if the body is found in the back of the car kind?

Or someone caught in the act of chopping someone up, alive? Like Michael Adebolajo for instance?

So what posters are saying is that two people could be convicted of the same crime, but receive different sentences based on whether they were caught in the act or not?

A body in a car boot is not a guarantee that a murder has been committed.

A body in a car boot is not a guarantee that a murder has been committed.

I couldn’t agree more. Bodies are always turning up in car boots without any murder (or any crime at all) being committed.

How about Adebolajo? Any doubt it wasn’t him & his accomplice that hacked an off duty soldier to death, in broad daylight?

Next, someone will say he (Adebolajo) had/has mental health problems.

How about Adebolajo? Any doubt it wasn’t him & his accomplice that hacked an off duty soldier to death, in broad daylight?

Right, it’s quite **** simple. No means no, no matter how many carrots you dangle in front of people you want to have killed no still means no.

Right, it’s quite **** simple. No means no, no matter how many carrots you dangle in front of people you want to have killed no still means no.

HaHa. Whatever, for now. I’d pull the trigger on that worthless piece of crap myself.

I couldn’t agree more. Bodies are always turning up in car boots without any murder (or any crime at all) being committed.

I never said no crime had been committed. I said it did not necessarily indicate a murder. It may be hard to grasp, but people do receive manslaughter convictions on grounds of diminished responsibility for a range of reasons.

On Adebolajo, no I don’t doubt he did it, but it still won’t make me wish for a death penalty. He received a whole life sentence if I am right. I am curious to know why you don’t mention his partner in crime Adebowale and whether he should also receive a death sentence.

HaHa. Whatever, for now. I’d pull the trigger on that worthless piece of crap myself.

You could also pull the trigger on David Norris and Gary Dobson as well if you like.

Yawn.

It’s either revenge or cost saving….. neither are a good reason for killing somebody, unless you’re morally bankrupt.

Aha, so what about somebody that killed somebody for revenge?

Drunk driver runs over a toddler.  No doubt who did it, driver arrested at the scene, admits it.  Father of the toddler shoots him outside the court, caught on camera.

So, do you sentence the father to death?  I mean, there is no doubt he did it.  Or do you pardon him, on the basis that the state now condones the taking of a life for the purposes of revenge?

All odf you that are in favour of the death penalty what are you going to do about wrongful convictions>

Birmigham six, guilford 4, Stephen Downing?

Is it acceptable that these innocent men would be dead?

How about if your son was wrongfully convicted and hung?  Is that acceptable?

Drunk driver runs over a toddler.  No doubt who did it, driver arrested at the scene, admits it.  Father of the toddler shoots him outside the court, caught on camera.

So, do you sentence the father to death?  I mean, there is no doubt he did it.  Or do you pardon him, on the basis that the state now condones the taking of a life for the purposes of revenge?

People’s blood lust gets up when the case is put in such emotive terms. What if someone was convicted of exactly the same crime but the drunk driver was a well to do 17 year old first year medical student, who was over the limit the next day after a reunion with old friends the night before, and the victim was a 17 year old homeless runaway with a history of drug abuse, self harm and mental health issues.

I bet the Daily Mail brigade would be less likely to push for a death penalty then. It was probably best for the victim.

Bring it back for people who spit chewing gum on to the ground and/or flick their cigarette butts on to the ground.

Bit harsh. Definitely public flogging though.

HaHa. Whatever, for now. I’d pull the trigger on that worthless piece of crap myself.

Off you pop then. What’s the worst that could happen? You won’t be hung for it.

Drunk driver runs over a toddler……. etc.

Does France still have “crime of passion”?

What about the UKIP councillor who killed his wife when she found out he’d had an affair with his sons girlfriend?

He also had a pint with Flaparge during the Brexit propaganda trail.

Can we kill the jurers, judge and police if they convict someone who was not guilty to death?

Even if we could prove the impossible, beyond any doubt, that someone was guilty, it is still barbaric. We have to show those who are doing wrong how civilised people behave. Killing another human is the act of an uncivilised society. I want no part in it.

Wasn’t there some smarmy Lib Dem MP a while ago who went on Daily Politics saying he’d raise a members bill for whatever the Daily Politics show voted for as the most popular?

Death Sentence was overwhelmingly the most popular and he sharp changed his mind.