bazzer and binners,

Inconveniently for you, I’m heavily in favour of letting adults make up their own minds (about drugs and anything else that directly harms no-one else).

But the point I (tried to) make with the grauniad article was that the liberalisation of gambling has got to the point where the advertising is becoming pervasive and is being seen by children.

Whether the children have the money to participate is irrelevant if they are being influenced by the advertising from a young age. They are all future customers, as learned and practised by the tobacco and alcohol advertising industries for years.

I’m NOT suggesting that gambling should be banned, and that you should be cruelly and heartlessly deprived of your occasional flutter, but that maybe the restrictions on advertising should either be tightened up or enforced more effectively.

PS If you think a quick chat with their parents will make children immune to pervasive advertising, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.

Lovely response: “Its the parents fault”

Unless you are a blind libertarian, you can probably see that society has used many forms of laws and restrictions to protect itself (to a greater or lesser extent) from things that cause significant negative effects (smoking, drinking, drugs and (moreso in the past) gambling).

Its perfectly valid to ask for restrictions on things that cause generally bad effects on society, whether or not they affect certain individuals.

In many ways thats what society is for.

It’s true that we don’t ban food/alcohol/tobacco, but we DO put massive restrictions on the form and tone of advertising that can be used (or whether advertising can be used at all), seriously enforce age restrictions, and don’t allow coco-pops, vodka and ciggies to be piped into childrens bedrooms without their parents knowledge.

Any other silly comparisons to justify gambling as a business?

Gambling is not a normal business. Leaving legality aside drug dealers have equivalent or better moral justification.

What do the “its the responsibility of the gambler” types feel about this from the Grauniad?

Still relaxed about it?

Weird how the act of communicating with the creator and maintainer of the whole universe and everything in it (allegedly) suddenly becomes such a small thing (or a matter of “respect”) when people object to taking part.

If prayer isn’t powerful, important or potentially life changing, theres no reason to enforce it.

If it is powerful, important and potentially life changing, then thats a very good reason not to make people do it with out their full consent.

I love that “respecting others beliefs” always seems to flow one way (respecting believers). Why can’t they follow the teachings of the bible and pray in secret? 🙂

And where would the steam come from for your (non electric) cats?

QE is not nuclear (for a variety of good reasons) and can’t run them.

Edit: Legend beat me to it 🙂

I guess it bodes well for the future of the U.K carriers that there are so many interested carrier and air warfare experts out there on the interwebs 🙂

MSP

Jerermy Corbyn (played by Mel Gibson)

Subtle ;o)

Its relevant that these are not new allegations out of the blue . She has spoken about the attack and who did it to various people over the years, a long time before this nomination.

WRT the “female staff” thing. Some stuff has come out about prospective female interns being told by their professors to “dress like a model” to improve chances of getting a job with him.

Avoiding FBI investigation is interesting. I have a suspicion that more people go to jail for “lying to the FBI” than for the crimes they are actually accused of. e.g. The one big reason why trumps lawyers won’t let him talk to the feds about his issues, is that he’s physically incapable of telling the truth.

This  from popehat on twitter is amusing (or frightening if you’re an american/person of interest).

I agree that people see bias against their own views all of the time. I’m guilty of that too. but let me express a few frustrations re: BBC brexit coverage.

No-one ever asks the “Taxpayers Alliance” who pays their bills.

No-one ever asks the ERG “So what is your plan then”

No-one ever challenges the “no deal will be fine” fanatics, with why they disagree with 99% of economists.

No-one ever asks how the “easiest deal in history” turned into “there will be adequate food”.

No-one ever asks how an advisory referendum became the “will of the people”.

No-one ever asks “Why, if we were worried about immigration, did the UK not implement the EU law saying that EU citizens had to support themselves or leave the UK after 3 months?”

(Which incidentally was the main reason the EU sent Cameron home with nothing extra. Because he had everything he wanted already.)

Overall, I agree with those who recommend Channel 4 news.

The BBC jumped the shark pretty cleanly when they decided that 52% = 100%.

People in Scotland complain about the portrayal of the independence movement, but you can’t deny that, even today, if Nicola whispers the word it gets on the news.

If only the campaign for a peoples vote on brexit got the same coverage.

Yup, They’re trolling everyone.

a) The people who believe it was Russia, by basically saying we’ve not even bothered to make up a plausible story, what’cha’gonna’do? AND

b) the ones who were sure that the “two russians” were an MI5 plot*, by saying here they are, yes they exist. How’s that conspiracy worldview looking for you now?

c) also Corbyn. It looks like the evidence that wasn’t enough for him is getting more solid. Has he made any comment yet?

*to hide the fact that it was Aliens carrying out a false flag operation on behalf of mossad, to distract attention from the other aliens (who escaped through the broken fourth wall in a Deadpool movie).

Dragging this up from the depths, but in answer to epicyclo.

Even with a positive reading your quoted words are what they are. If you want to withdraw them thats fine. Do you?

BTW You still haven’t agreed with my statement earlier:

For the avoidance of doubt, do you agree with what I said earlier.

That casting aspersions on the complainants in a sexual harassment case makes you an irretrievable 24 carat bellend?

Any comment? Yes or No will do. 🙂

gordimhor

He was an investment banker (see his wikipedia page), apparently thats snpbad when you’re english, but snpgood if you’re scottish?

As to the rest, everyone was letting it lie until he decided to rewrite history a few months ago which led to these articles:

Scotsman  Times  Sunday Post  libdems   etc. etc.

If it had all been a bit of banter during the campaign I doubt it would be resonating so much so many years later.

Blackford himself probably considers it something to be ashamed of. Otherwise why go on the record trying to rewrite it?

You might not accept my evidence, in the form of press reports, but they did seem to stop Blackfords rewrite in its tracks.

Which was nice.

epicyclo,

You genuinely seem to be having an issue with the complainants.

For the avoidance of doubt, do you agree with what I said earlier.

That casting aspersions on the complainants in a sexual harassment case makes you an irretrievable 24 carat bellend?

Yes or No? (you should be familiar with at least one of those words)

Please note that I’m answering “YOU” not “many people in the independence movement”. Please stop trying to separate yourself from your own comments.

Your comment was;

If he was daft enough to touch up or put the hard word on staff members of the Westminster Civil Service, people who he would know to distrust, he deserves everything that will come his way.

And it still sounds dodgy as **** to me, because theres no way that that can be read in English that does not imply that the complainants are untrustworthy in some way because of their assumed (by you) political allegiance.

Also please stop putting words in my mouth. I dislike Salmond intensely, and on many levels, but I’d like to see justice in this case, not a show trial.

Can you really say the same when you are assuming such bad faith on the part of the complainants from the start?

If nothing else, its becoming more obvious by the second why the complainants waited until Salmond was less powerful to bring forward their complaints.

rene59

Well it’s been over a week now and no word from the police?

Which is relevant because?

Although, if we’re making lists:

Thing which didn’t happen this week.

Salmond has failed to comment on the latest allegations about the nerve agent poisonings in the UK and his position working for Putin on Russia Today.

Things which did happen this week.

Tommy Sheridan has joined Salmond on the rouble-go-round with a chat show on the Kremlin mouthpiece Sputnik UK.

Even SNP Westminster leader, (blowhard ex-banker and man who tormented Charles Kennedy in the last months of his life) Ian Blackford has labelled Russia Today (where Salmond works) a “vehicle of the Russian state” and said he didn’t believe anyone should broadcast on it.

Its all conspiracies, all the way down I tells ye! 🙂

epicyclo,

Even with a generous reading, you really do seem to have a complete lack of sympathy for the complainants in this case.

This quote;

If he was daft enough to touch up or put the hard word on staff members of the Westminster Civil Service, people who he would know to distrust, he deserves everything that will come his way.

Says a lot about you.

You don’t say  “if he did it he deserves everything he gets”. But “if he did it to untrustworthy people he deserves everything he gets”!?

The pretty clear implication is that it would be OK if he “touched up or put the hard word” (wtf!?) on “more trustworthy” people? Or that their “trustworthiness” is relevant to the facts.

You are fractally wrong here. Factually wrong (as explained by grumpysculler) and morally repugnant (as shown by your words above).

I said earlier;

There’s a pretty even chance that the women bringing the complaints are supporters of the SNP and independence themselves. Would that colour your view of the allegations differently, and if so, why?

I hoped that would make you realise that you are bringing politics into a part of this discussion where it does not belong.

But you dove straight in, no hesitation.

These women can’t be victims complaining about harassment.

Their motives have to be suspect.

Their politics has to be the wrong kind.

Their commitment (or lack of commitment) to your nationalism is the overriding deciding factor.

Wow. Must be rough living inside your head.

Is it a bit like the cartoon below? from here

I know you won’t like the comparison, but I assure you that is completely deliberate on my part.

and if the shoe fits…… 🙂

epicyclo,

I know anything about scottish politics has the potential to be divisive and make people quite irate. But is there any chance at all that you might look at your comments on this thread (with the subject matter at the front of your mind) and maybe consider if you are on the side of the angels here?

There’s a pretty even chance that the women bringing the complaints are supporters of the SNP and independence themselves. Would that colour your view of the allegations differently, and if so, why?

All the noise about how the press is covering these allegations, and how its all blown out of proportion, but no reflection on the reality of how this would be covered if it was David Cameron or Obama or even Nicola Sturgeon who were accused?

Earlier in the thread you even brought up “50 parliamentary pedos” as something that the press failed to highlight, despite the fact that a police investigation into those allegations was carried out (with maximum press coverage) into many people. Including an ex prime minister, and others who couldn’t defend themselves due to being senile or dead (also no evidence was found, which received correspondingly less coverage).

Maybe you should

a) be secretly proud that Salmond can still generate so many headlines, and

b) reflect that justice in sexual harassment cases shouldn’t be  a popularity contest?

epicyclo

Seems like there has been a surge in SNP membership…

It now has more members than the Tory party has.

Wonder why?

Is this the new “look how much money he’s raised”?

Anyway, I’ll bite.

Is it because many people in Scotland think that a sexual harassment process developed within the Scottish Government (with union involvement) under an SNP administration might be an MI5 plot?

Is it because there are many people in Scotland who will believe anything that the party tells them despite the evidence of their own eyes?

Is it because they’ve all read the policy in detail and have righteous concerns based on their wide experience of sexual harassment cases?

Who knows?

Turnerguy, I assume you’re joking and not casting aspersions on the complainants in a sexual harassment case. Otherwise you’d be an irretrievable 24 carat bellend.

Nichola = Nicola

I seem to have misspelled her name and i agree that its _frighteningly_ unclear from the the context who I was referring to.

Thank you for your correction.

epicyclo

I think the Scottish public is competent enough to decide what they think is a “good cause” and they have pitched into this one.

Do you mind if I keep this in my paste buffer so that I can bring it out next time you talk about the injustices of the indyref and how the “Scottish Public” were duped and taken in by obvious lies?

Boardin Bob

the complaints had merit

Based almost exclusively on the details presented by the accusers?

Which “details” WOULD you expect to make up a large part of any accusation?

Would the process be improved if the entire process revolved around the accused saying “idid’ndoit”?

Having said that, if the process has _only_ taken the word of the accusers into account and ignored any other evidence then it may well be an injustice.

But I’m sure there’s a lot of information that could make a complaint look plausible or implausible:

Were the complainants and the accused even in the same place at the time?

Can anyone else say that they were alone at the time?

Who was the last person to leave?

Was there relatively concurrent testimony to a third party about what happened?

If “the process” has taken these things into account, I don’t have a problem with it.

As an aside, it’s a little worrying that Alex’s comments regarding “the process” seem to be taken as gospel here. Bear in mind that Leslie Evans comment on Alex’s initial rant was that;

His statement contains significant inaccuracies which will be addressed in those court proceedings.

Its also worth considering that people seem to think that this process was specially set up for Alex.

I agree that that’s a possibility, but I disagree that that necessarily makes it a bad thing.

Overall one of the best arguments in favour of this process being required is an old one recycled from the discussions we’ve had here about the GERS statistics.

If this is an MI5 plot, why is Nichola up to her oxters in it?

Rabbitholes everywhere, or reality everywhere. You decide.

epicyclo,

At the heart of this are at least 3 people (2 women, one man). Their interactions are now the subject of investigations by various people. We’re waiting for the outcome and trying to ignore the fluff.

In your head, a relatively small group of people contributing money to a crowdfund is apparently a very significant part of this process.

Its not.

I’ll repeat what I said earlier.

There’s little (by MI5 or anyone) that could be done to Salmond to make him a bigger laughing stock than he has made himself already.

If it comes to that, Sturgeon has better reason to want him to shut up at the moment than just about anyone else. If he ever gets invited to Bute house again he should probably avoid standing near any candlesticks in the library.

Aye, some people saying lets see the outcome of the court case (and any investigation).

Others saying its a conspiracy organised by MI5, the deep state and tunnocks eaters.

I wonder who’s ragin’ hardest :O)

Things that are unrelated to the truth of the allegations against Alex:

-The amount of money he can raise from crowdfunding

-The amount of money he has given to charity,

-His average turd length.

Maybe we should wait for a conviction before gathering information for a mitigation plea?

Guardian take seems reasonable: link

Also, epicyclo, are you really saying that all of the people contributing to Salmond have looked at the process in detail and decided that its unfair?

epicyclo,

Was it MI5, the deep state or aliens?

Maybe the whole Westminster harassment scandal was set up just so that the Scottish Government would improve the way in which they deal with claims of harassment, just to get at Salmond?

Wow, how deep does the rabbithole go!

<JHJ>

Salmond harassed staff (allegedly) 2013

Salmond got job on Putins propaganda channel Nov 2017

Westminster harassment scandal Jan 2018

SG updates harassment process to trap Salmond

MWA HA HA HA HA etc.

</JHJ>

To be fair to the deep state, they should have been be bright enough to notice the fact that Salmond taking a job at RT was the last straw for his integrity for anyone with sense (including many in the SNP).

Nothing else beyond what hes done to himself should be necessary.

Well its working.

Everyones looking at “the process” and no-one looking at the accusations.

2 women, apparently SG employees, have come forward and accused the top politician in Scotland of some form of harassment while he was first minister.

If “the process” allows the basic facts to be established (were both the people actually there at the relevant time?) and then passes the information to the relevant authorities, I can’t see what hes complaining about?

WRT Salmonds claims, Leslie Evans says that;

His statement contains significant inaccuracies which will be addressed in those court proceedings.

So, for now, lets remember that even if “the process” was imperfect, the accusations still exist.

They were made against someone who is no longer first minister, but whose party are still in power. Thats not an easy thing to do.

Honestly, if “the process” is one that doesn’t allow complaints like this to be swept under the carpet for anyones political convenience, then at least some part of it is working right.

In my nightmares I can see “but the process” becoming the zoomer version of “but her emails”. 🙂

Steven Fry from Intelligence ^2 debate

…they for example thought that slavery was perfectly fine, absolutely okay, and then they didn’t. And what is the point of the Catholic church if it says ‘oh, well we couldn’t know better because nobody else did,’ then what are you for?

The last bit is the important point.

The churches claim to authority is based on their personal connection to an all seeing all knowing loving being (who is the same yesterday today and forever).

If thats true (?) how do they get to apologise for the past by saying “we didn’t know” or “things have changed”?

How do you say “I like him because he’s changing things” without the doublethink making your head explode?

Its BS all the way down, and the only way it makes even the barest sense, is if:

a) there is no god, and

b) its a human organisation (collectively guilty of horrendous crimes) who make a lot of stuff up.

Thats why they make me angry. And probably why me (and possibly Mr Woppit) bang on about it (on occasion).

It’s like being the boy in the crowd watching the emperor walking around in the nuddy, and listening to the rest of the crowd talk about how “things have improved now that he no longer has a child impaled on his twig and berries. Truly he is a moral giant!”

If you don’t think its weird you haven’t thought about it enough.

The attitude that led him to crowdfund this is the reason hes a nobber regardless of the truth of the allegations.

For those who have doubts about how this has come about. What if this is just how the process works?

Allegations were made and investigated and remained secret until there was a decision to release it to the press when not doing that became untenable.

For those who say this was “timed”, ask yourself honestly. What time/date would have satisfied you that this was not a conspiracy of some kind?

By all accounts the process stayed quiet from January to August. Does that sound like a leaky civil service to you?

The rest of the fluff is just an attempt to distract from whats actually alleged.

Salmond is clutching at the “process” because if this flies hes finished and he knows it, he just needs to try to cast enough doubt in the minds of his supporters (the people who thought it was OK, or even good, that he got a job with RT, who deny GERS, think theres oil under the Clyde and claim exported whisky is taxed on the way out of the U.K. :O) so that he can keep milking them for the forseeable (crowdfunder).

Hence the twitter (and crowdfunder) comments about conspiracy and the the “deep state” (who for some reason despite their infinite knowledge failed to bring all this up in the run up to the indyref? Really?)

Weirdly, the timing is one of the things that rings truest for me.

Look at how people are reacting to these accusations now. Then imagine what would have happened during the independence campaign?

The women involved would have faced very significant consequences, accused of being liars, political tools, agents, traitors. It would have been the everyday treatment that women get when they accuse powerful men squared (this was before #metoo).

Salmond won’t go away as long as there are people to listen and roubles on the table. As reality squeezes he’ll squeak louder until he becomes the Scottish Alex Jones, without the vitamin sales.

drac, not that odd, I skim read the thread and you stood out.

I agree my comment could apply to others.

Maybe you should all get together and work on the list of problems?

You could organise a convention .. maybe call it “What’a bout’a Con”, I’m sure you’d all find common ground.

Of course there might be more important things to do first, so I guess everyone will just have to do nothing in the interim.

Perfect.

drac

noun: finely distilled whataboutery in its purest breathing form.

Examples: I almost made a small difference, but then a drac came along and made it painful and complex.

Could you please direct me to your list of all of the problems in the world in the correct order in case we inadvertently solve a simple small one before dealing with all the others?

Asking for a friend, Thanks 🙂

There are ways to challenge someones views without being rude.
The corollary to that is that some people find the act that you disagree with them “offensive”.

(actually based on this thread, many people seem to find the act of disagreeing with _anyone_ [except Mr Woppit] offensive 🙂

If someone says: “I believe X”
You answer: “I’ve never seen any reason to believe X and personally I see no need for it. What makes you think it is beneficial and/or true?”

If X was “that all shoes are blue and garfield the cartoon cat is the king of badgers” you’re seen as a reasonable, perhaps restrained conversationalist.

If X is that “god is a man who killed himself temporarily so that he could forgive us for the things that we did not do to him” you’re an intolerant gobshite.

Theres a lot of possible opinions under X and the more unjustified and unevidenced, the more offensive any questioning is seen to be.

Its just how things are.

Personally, I just go with what I say to people who believe in crystals or homeopathy.

If you find it beneficial I’m sure theres no harm in it, but you should be careful of anyone who recommends it as an alternative to anti-malaria drugs or as a cure for cancer.

Its the philosophical equivalent of the line from Spike Milligan.

“Does it hurt to urinate through it?”

“No.”

“Well, I would just use it for that then.”

ransos

But there are cases where a suspect cannot be charged without the evidence gathered from publicising his name.

Yes I’ve heard of those cases. I think they are called “cases with insufficient evidence”, or “cases with no case”.

In principle I agree that peoples names should be released in some circumstances, but not as a matter of course, and only with a genuine legal justification, not a fishing expedition.

epicyclo

“50 plus parlimentary pedos”

paedogeddon!

You do realise that all of that was based on the word of one man (recipient of much “compensation”) and led to a massive well funded police operation, which found no corroboration. And the main protagonist is now facing charges for having child porn on his computer?

Of course all of that is the result of the workings of the (harumph) deep state ……..

I agree that allegations should be kept out of the news until at least someone is charged.

Apparently Alex had already taken legal action to prevent the complaints being made public, which he’s now waived himself.

Of course that relies on him actually having taken “legal advice” this time, instead of just making it up at random 🙂

As far as Nichola’s statement goes: “This focus on process cannot deflect from the fact that complaints were made that could not be ignored or swept under the carpet.”

Good for her, perfect statement in the circumstances.

The perfect ending for me would be one where Russia Today dissociate themselves from him for being bad for their brand.

Pollocks

Simple question.

When someone is accused of sexual assault whats the “proper” way to deal with it;

a) Report it to the police and let them deal with it. Or,

b) Invite the accused into the process to “resolve the matter properly and amicably”

Quote from Salmond:

“Even now I have not been allowed to see and therefore to properly challenge the case against me.

“I have not been allowed to see the evidence. I have tried everything, including offers of conciliation, mediation and legal arbitration to resolve these matters both properly and amicably.”

“This would have been in everybody’s interests, particularly those of the two complainants. All of these efforts have been rejected.”

So basically he would have done _anything_ to prevent the allegations going to the police, and claims that this would have been in the complainants interests….

In some ways I’m filled with grudging admiration. The man could pull a rhetorical victim card out of his arse if he was found eating a tesco lasagne over the bones of Shergar.

I’m a bit late to this but I’ve just read the up the thread where someone said that Black Panther had a bit of cultural stereotyping.

I can understand the feeling (felt a bit thrown watching it myself) but thinking about it afterwards (and having a bit of a google) I found that there was a deliberate attempt by the makers to make Wakanda reflect various African traditions, languages, cultures & styles of dress and to celebrate them.

The whole world was carefully designed to bring together bits of African culture, but without being based entirely on any single one.

I think that the fact that its easy to see stereotyping in what should be a celebration might just be because we’re not used to seeing these cultural references in movies made by Africans (or people of African extraction).

It shouldn’t be necessary to think about stuff like that in order to enjoy a movie, but maybe Africa is the exception to that rule?

Do people watching Bollywood or kung fu movies feel uncomfortable with the stereotyping?

You might not like the style, but the stereotypes are at least chosen by people who are from those cultures and choose to emphasise certain aspects, and thats whats happening in BP.

To sum up;
You might not feel comfortable with the way those cultural elements are displayed, but they’re not yours, and your discomfort might say more about the history of films about Africa than it does about this particular movie.

Also, the movie went down very well _in_ Africa :O)

PS, I personally thought it could have been a better movie, but they were trying to do an awful lot in one movie, and did it pretty well. Roll on Black Panther 2, there are a lot of characters I want to see more of (if anyone ever makes it back after Infinity war, which was great by the way).

re: waterproof cameras with big sensors…

Nikon AW1 is a fully waterproof camera with a 1″ sensor.

Sizewise 1″ is to aps-c as aps-c is to full frame, (ish) but probably not what you’re looking for.

Most pro SLRs combined with with pro lenses are “weather sealed” and perform pretty well (I’ve seen 7dii and EOS1dx ii cameras out in some pretty severe wind and rain) but the level of trust you put in the sealing (particularly between lens and camera) is probably a product of necessity and your level of insurance.

Personally I prefer to think of the seals as a good barrier to condensation and a few unavoidable splashes, but put my trust in a decent camera cover 🙂

Mikewsnith

You’ve made many points (pretty much all of which I would agree with) but none about the morality of the death penalty.

I’m not arguing for it being useful, advisable, effective, a deterrent to others. I’m just saying it can be justified morally.

That idea (the golden rule) is not based on the bible (which I would consider a poor and self contradictory resource for any point of view, except obviously when it comes to banning the eating of shellfish). Thats just (probably) the most familiar example for people in 21C UK. See wikipedia.

It might not be a moral argument that you like or respect, but it is a moral argument that exists.

Unlike yours.

onewheelgood

Are you suggesting that this supersedes “Thou shalt not kill?”. If so, that would be a spectacular bit of cherry picking.

I’m not defending the bible and its innocent slaughtering and virgin raping propensities in any way shape or form, but in this case that particular bit translates better as “Thou shalt not murder” (which is different from “killing”).

It would be a hard argument for Jeebus himself to make that it literally meant “Thou shalt not kill” bearing in mind what the israelites did to the people who inhabited the promised land shortly (ish) after reading it for the first time (see reference above to slaughter and rape of virgins).

mikewsmith

And we can make an assessment of it, I’d say it’s paper thin

Yes, I see it all clearly now.

The thickness, softness and width of your rebuttal is like 21st century toilet paper.

Your counterargument has defeated me with its clarity and paper based references.

I bow to your superior skills.

I’m assuming all this of course, as you made no actual argument of any kind. But I’m sure your certainty that such an argument exists is all the proof I need to change my mind.

Thanks for your input I guess. 🙂

scotroutes, mikewsmith

I was asked for the (my) moral justification, I gave it.

But I I’m against the death penalty for practical reasons, given above (which I believe are insurmountable).

For clarity, I have equal disrespect for people who think that introducing the death penalty would do anything positive (without even considering the state of the criminal justice system) AND those who say that all killing is murder.

“Can you define the moral justification”

Not a philosopher, but from my simplistic point of view, its the golden rule. The (historically late) christian version being  “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”

So if I murdered a child, what do I think would be a fitting punishment for me?

I think I know that answer for me, so I’ll happily (perhaps even enthusiastically) apply that to others.

Having said that I am dead against the death penalty for the reasons expressed above.

Some people (some on here) seem to think that killing another person for any reason under any circumstances is morally equivalent to murder.

These people are either moral giants from olympus (or similar) sent to educate us lower mortals in their higher ways, or moral pygmies who lack history books and dictionaries.