Sutcliffe

Well, you may be the sort of person who thinks it's a good idea to release sex offenders back into the community early so that more little children can go missing, I do not.

Originally Posted by Sutcliffe Yes, and by no remarkable coincidence there is litter all over the council estates, but virtually none in more select areas. It's all about moral standards and social responsibility. They in turn come from parental example, education and breeding. Well, at least we partially agree. But why 'rowlocks' for the first part - can you actually disagree that people in deprived areas are more prone to drop litter and fly tip, whereas people in the nicer suburbs tend to be house proud and hardly the sort to throw fag packets or MacDonalds wrappers out of their car windows?

It really doesn't work like that. Council resources are not channelled into the nicer suburbs; it just happens that they look tidier because people hardly drop litter or vandalise in the first place.

I'm missing something here, that I simply cannot understand. Usually when people differ over a subject, however contentious, one can at least view the debate (though not always with empathy) from the opposition’s perspective. In this case I am simply unable to do so. I cannot understand why the ‘rights’ of murderers, rapists, habitual robbers/burglars/muggers/car thieves, or persistently violent or thieving offenders are given even the slightest consideration. It is beyond me that anybody could voice their defence. If people choose to exempt themselves from social and moral responsibility, and choose to take a path of wickedness, why would anybody want to reward them with sympathy and understanding? And forget the ‘human rights’ nonsense. People deserve rights, respect and protection based on who they are as a person, what they themselves have contributed to society, and having demonstrated their own morality. To give sacred ‘rights’ to 200 pounds of DNA just because it happens to be able to walk upright and speak is nonsensical. I’m sure there will be somebody out there who will argue that murderers deserve the same rights and protection as their victims. Well, such apologists are utterly wrong. If a savage dog shows that it will maul people or sheep, and is likely to do so again, we must destroy it – in many cases, the law forces us to. I see no difference between this and the way we should treat persistent or dangerous criminals.

If somebody I knew were raped, I'd quite like the idea of the offender sharing a cell with Big Frank and being violently bummed every night for the next 15 years.

The only reason that it has taken 9 years is that, after the original obvious answer that it was an accident, loads of nutters have constantly insisted on a further enquiry - at gross waste of public money - which was only ever able to repeat the same findings as originally stated. The woman died in a car accident. Unlucky, but hardly remarkable or mysterious.

Seeing as the poll options vary from 'pay for everything' to 'all should be free', I fail to see how it is unbiased or, as you so eloquently put, 'crap'. And, as it happens, I am a graduate - who did a real degree, 'A' levels when they were worth the paper they were written on, and 'O' levels when they were as demanding as the current so-called 'A' levels.

Yes, and by no remarkable coincidence there is litter all over the council estates, but virtually none in more select areas. It's all about moral standards and social responsibility. They in turn come from parental example, education and breeding.

I don't have a problem with that.

I agree, but some (more qualified than I) still argue that something negligibly small still exists, and therefore .99999 recurring isn't 1.

I agree that education is the nation's lifeblood, must be invested in, and should be provided for free where appropriate. The trouble is, by offering Mickey Mouse degrees for free, and by dumbing down the standards (to make it possible for most people to achieve a degree), we demean the value of a degree in the first place. There should be a series of filters in the education system, with GCSE, 'A' level and degree standards being progressively harder, and designed to filter out the less able so that qualifications actually mean something, rather than being a meaningless piece of paper that anybody can get on a 3 year attendance course.

How do you know it does not deter? You could only know that if you were to remove the death penalty from a state and see if it makes no difference. For all you know, the rates could be even higher without the death penalty.

I would agree, in fact I'd say it's just an inability of the decimal system to add one third to two thirds - but I've had many a debate with mathematicians who insist that however negligibly small a difference may be, it's still a difference.

So the reason you don't have a job isn't because you're disabled and don't have a degree, it's because you haven't updated your qualifications or experiences to give you anything to offer to an employer.

Is .99999 recurring the same as 1?