Well, That Will Give Her Some Relief!

[Proposition Joe]

I'm just not sure where the schtick of saying something and then pretending you haven't said it - or at least clearly implied it - gets us.

[Harlow]

Harlow:- Couldn't see the point of this case being re-opened. Now, as Edith Thompson was hung 100 years ago, perhaps to some, this looks like the distant murky past. But I am pretty sure, that I have read, that she has near relatives still around ( possibly siblings or cousins ). This is feasible as my mum was born just ten years after Edith, and I am still around. Edith was the eldest of five children
She came from a respectable family, the grand daughter of a policeman. Rather than being involved in the murder, she was a witness to it and in fact was knocked to the ground during the altercation, heard to be saying: Oh don't, oh don't !
This must have been deemed a terrible disgrace on the family, plus an awful lot of distressing information was brought up at her trial. If you read about it. It is truly sickening and smacks of misogyny.

Given the ages it seems unlikely siblings or cousins will be alive. Wikipedia has a write up-for me, what wasn't stated is relevant ie how did Bywaters know where she and her husband would be if Edith hadn't told him.

I see there is a film "Another Life" about it

[tuffers#1]

I'm just not sure where the schtick of saying something and then pretending you haven't said it - or at least clearly implied it - gets us.

All you have to do is copy & paste the direct quote of what I supposedly wrote Joe , it should be easy if I Said it.

[CEB]

I deduce that because a miscarriage of justice is not self evidently a reason to abandon prison, is it?

It is if its based on a much flawed Judicial service !

Here you go mate x

[Proposition Joe]

I know you'll complain about me being belittling - and maybe this is a limitation on my part - but I genuinely don't know what else to say other than "do you know what 'clearly implied' means?"

[tuffers#1]

I deduce that because a miscarriage of justice is not self evidently a reason to abandon prison, is it?

It is if its based on a much flawed Judicial service !

Here you go mate x

Thats not abandonment of prisons , its abandonment of a flawed judicial service xx
❤

[tuffers#1]

I know you'll complain about me being belittling - and maybe this is a limitation on my part - but I genuinely don't know what else to say other than "do you know what 'clearly implied' means?"

Of course I do , However I didnt Imply anything of the sort . Belittling is your attempt to know the point I am making . If you stopped & thought to ask you would have got a precise answer, but you didnt .

[CEB]

“I didn’t imply anything if the sort”

Aside from when I said
“It isn’t self evidently a reason to abandon prison, is it?”, and your reply said “it is” followed by the conditions under which you believe that to be true - a much flawed judicial process - in a thread where you have brought up specific incidents to make the case that you believe the current judicial system is fundamentally flawed.

Again, as PJ said, pretending not to have said things you’ve actually said is a very odd thing to do.

[tuffers#1]

“I didn’t imply anything if the sort”

Aside from when I said
“It isn’t self evidently a reason to abandon prison, is it?”, and your reply said “it is” followed by the conditions under which you believe that to be true - a much flawed judicial process - in a thread where you have brought up specific incidents to make the case that you believe the current judicial system is fundamentally flawed.

Again, as PJ said, pretending not to have said things you’ve actually said is a very odd thing to do.

I brought up a Specific Speech Kev
Im not sure you listened to it



I havent claimed that I havent said the Judicial system is fundamentally flawed .
You & Peejoe claimed I didnt believe in prisons .

Lets keep it truthful now Kyle

[Harlow]

Had an argument with a colleague about this once, and I thought I'd persuade her with 'innocent people will inevitably end up being executed', and she replied 'as long as 9 out of 10 are guilty, I think that's OK'. Had to just leave it.

The price for democracy has involved innocent people suffering and even dying. Take WW2, millions of people died to beat the Nazis

Would you be happy with a 9 out of 10 'success rate' in terms of correct death penalty convictions?

As it happens, I would not . Before execution I would expect greater examination of the case because of the stakes being that much higher, but does that make my comment re democracy any less valid.

Also, was it the Birmingham six referred to here? Who wrongly imprisoned them-was it the govt or was it the actual perpetrators who allowed their fellow countrymen to go to jail rather than own up?

[StillSpike]

The price for democracy has involved innocent people suffering and even dying. Take WW2, millions of people died to beat the Nazis

Would you be happy with a 9 out of 10 'success rate' in terms of correct death penalty convictions?

As it happens, I would not . Before execution I would expect greater examination of the case because of the stakes being that much higher, but does that make my comment re democracy any less valid.

Also, was it the Birmingham six referred to here? Who wrongly imprisoned them-was it the govt or was it the actual perpetrators who allowed their fellow countrymen to go to jail rather than own up?

To be honest, I think you've stumbled upon something here. Instead of solving crimes, all the State needs to do is lock up some random citizens until the actual perpetrators give themselves up. We'd have to have a fair idea of their nationality, I suppose, to make it fair. So if we thought a French person had committed the crime, we'd lock up a random French person, English crim - English hostage. and so on. Sounds very practical to me.

And if the crim doesn't own up, any so-called miscarriage of justice is on them, rather than the State. Winner winner, chicken dinner.

Not just nationalities, mind, it might work for so-called "protected characteristics" too, so I'm sure it'd prove popular with the dinlows.

[oxo]

Would you be happy with a 9 out of 10 'success rate' in terms of correct death penalty convictions?

As it happens, I would not . Before execution I would expect greater examination of the case because of the stakes being that much higher, but does that make my comment re democracy any less valid.

I'm not sure how the price of democracy is really relevant.

WWII was necessary to prevent a fascist death cult from taking over the world. We're talking about the cost of capital punishment specifically, here. We already have a system for keeping the most violent offenders separate from the rest of society, and it doesn't require accidentally hanging innocent people.

[Max B Gold]

Would you be happy with a 9 out of 10 'success rate' in terms of correct death penalty convictions?

As it happens, I would not . Before execution I would expect greater examination of the case because of the stakes being that much higher, but does that make my comment re democracy any less valid.

Also, was it the Birmingham six referred to here? Who wrongly imprisoned them-was it the govt or was it the actual perpetrators who allowed their fellow countrymen to go to jail rather than own up?

To be honest, I think you've stumbled upon something here. Instead of solving crimes, all the State needs to do is lock up some random citizens until the actual perpetrators give themselves up. We'd have to have a fair idea of their nationality, I suppose, to make it fair. So if we thought a French person had committed the crime, we'd lock up a random French person, English crim - English hostage. and so on. Sounds very practical to me.

And if the crim doesn't own up, any so-called miscarriage of justice is on them, rather than the State. Winner winner, chicken dinner.

Not just nationalities, mind, it might work for so-called "protected characteristics" too, so I'm sure it'd prove popular with the dinlows.

We're you ever a teacher?