hypochondriac

Laughable. Can you not read? It's perfectly possible for someone to oppose capital punishment and support assisted suicide for different reasons. You simply cannot believe that it is wrong for the state to take a life and then support the state taking a life. That's the part that is nonsensical, not the difference of opinion.

I never said that. I oppose the state being involved in assisting the death of others due to the potential for abuse and coercion. I am not opposed to the death penalty in a handful of very specific circumstances. Those two positions are perfectly compatible with each other. Saying you oppose the death penalty because the state should not be able to take a life whilst also supporting the state taking a life are two incompatible opinions to hold.

Some criminals request the death penalty. Bizarre to use the logic that the state should not have the right to take a life and then support the state assisting in the taking of a life.

Meanwhile you don't oppose state assisted suicide but do oppose the death penalty because it's wrong for the state to take a life?

I wouldn't want to subject the shirt to that hideous ordeal. Maybe a MLT picture tattooed on his forehead.

Interracial bukkake party.

I would also support this. Force extinction rebellion protestors to drive round a track in a jeep for five hours, make some of the vegan protestors eat a steak. All good ideas.

No. The death penalty can be on the table where the crime is sufficiently egregious, where no remorse is shown, where there are no mitigating factors and where the totality of evidence is such that there is certainty that the crime was committed by the individual in question. All I'm saying is that under those circumstances I would not be opposed to the death penalty.

As usual with you no specifics and you talk in generalities. Go and ask chatgpt for any examples of terrible crimes where the crime itself is indisputable. Not hard to think of a few. You can oppose the death penalty for many reasons but in the case of Rudakubana for instance, you can't oppose it because there may be a miscarriage of justice in that case. The idea is absurd and there's no dispute that he carried it out.

An interesting argument given how staunchly you were in favour of assisted suicide.

What cases? The cases I'm thinking of it would be impossible for that to be the case.

No that's resonable doubt. I'm talking about where there is no possible way they couldn't have done it. Like the Rudakubana case for example.

I would say that numerous witnesses, camera and video footage and the defendent pleading guilty would be a good example.

I personally would never advocate for the death penalty for someone like Letby where there was always an element of doubt. If it were ever introduced it should only ever be for the worst criminals and where there is zero doubt. She wouldn't qualify in that scenario.

I'm sure you can but I can also guarantee that whelk won't be running around crying about it. Best move is to just move on. If you show something affects you then you'll get it much more often. There's been far worse insults than that flung around by people who actually knew personal details about someone.

Man up son.

Either option is horrifying. The fact it may have got this far and there's even a chance she is innocent is terrible. You have experts on both sides saying completely opposing things it's very difficult to know the truth.

I think I mentioned before how Labour have terrible communication and PR. This Chagos thing is a prime example. Why would Starmer say nothing about it and allow the Mauritiun PM to come out and say how they are essentially fucking the UK over? Yes it's not that important but how is something like that and the sums involved after handing it over going to improve Starmer and the Labour Party's popularity?

I'll be honest I can't actually remember what I posted and I'm definitely not wading through pages to find out but from memory I simply posted what was being speculated about and commented about if it were true or not. I've never seen any evidence as yet that what was being speculated about has happened but I wouldn't say that has concluded as yet- certainly some odd goings on with his wife at any rate. On balance probably untrue but fun to speculate all the same. You would imagine if there were a secret child that someone like Starmer would have that knowledge quite securely bound behind an injunction. It won't have been the Christmas Eve visit from the speech therapist though- she's clearly post menopausal for a start...

She wasn't employed by the Labour Party, it was Christmas Eve and the lockdown rules were very clear, as were the rules about moving between tiers. You also say 'who cares.' Kier Starmer cares, as evidenced by the numerous clips at the dispatch box imploring Johnson to resign for breaking the rules.

Tories were rightly booted out last year. The focus is now rightly on those currently governing us for obvious reasons.

All he needs to do is explain how he didn't break the rules and it will be easily dismissed as being of no relevance. I'm sure he will be keen to do that.

Fair enough. There is political opportunism definitely but you could have accused Labour of exactly the same in opposition. That's the way of politics unfortunately.

I don't care I just think Starmer should be held to the same standard he has held others to. Nothing desperate about it.

If he did break lockdown then surely it's simply holding Starmer to the same standard he held others. He was quite keen to call for resignations when it was his opponent. There's questions to answer at the very least.