BLUEMOMENT

This (to my mind) is another example:

What is needed in these pirate infested waters is to behead offenders and for the other offenders to know about it. That will put an end to aspirant pirates' aspirations. The longer this sanguine requirement is delayed the worse the situation will become, and never mind the United Nations or anyone else.

And THAT is what is needed, nothing else.


Apart from the worryingly bloodthirsty tone:

Do countries with the death penalty have zero crime for capital offences?
Don't hundreds of Pirates die anyway in the course of carrying out the piracy?
Is it fair to force UK RN staff to carry out beheadings of prisoners? (If the Waffen SS didn't like it, will PO Smith from Droitwich like it?)
Nothing else? Wouldn't ending payment of Ransoms be effective also?

These guys can vote.

I wasn't aware that the ability to think was a prior requirement for enfranchisement.

I have seen little evidence of it elswhere.

Arghiro wrote:I wasn't aware that the ability to think was a prior requirement for enfranchisement.

I have seen little evidence of it elswhere.

I've always thought that every voting paper should come with a general knowledge paper and the vote be weighted on the result. So if you get 100pc your vote is worth 1. If you get 20pc your vote is worth .2.

Mark wrote:

Arghiro wrote:I wasn't aware that the ability to think was a prior requirement for enfranchisement.

I have seen little evidence of it elswhere.

I've always thought that every voting paper should come with a general knowledge paper and the vote be weighted on the result. So if you get 100pc your vote is worth 1. If you get 20pc your vote is worth .2.

I understand the principle, but who sets the questions? There is a lot of opportunity there to affect who votes.

Arghiro wrote:

Mark wrote:

Arghiro wrote:I wasn't aware that the ability to think was a prior requirement for enfranchisement.

I have seen little evidence of it elswhere.

I've always thought that every voting paper should come with a general knowledge paper and the vote be weighted on the result. So if you get 100pc your vote is worth 1. If you get 20pc your vote is worth .2.

I understand the principle, but who sets the questions? There is a lot of opportunity there to affect who votes.

I should have put smiley - I wasn't suggesting the UK seriously adopts that kind of scheme.

Mark wrote:

Arghiro wrote:

Mark wrote: I've always thought that every voting paper should come with a general knowledge paper and the vote be weighted on the result. So if you get 100pc your vote is worth 1. If you get 20pc your vote is worth .2.

I understand the principle, but who sets the questions? There is a lot of opportunity there to affect who votes.

I should have put smiley - I wasn't suggesting the UK seriously adopts that kind of scheme.

What makes you think I was taking you seriously anyway?

They really are mad as fish. Or am I mad for reading and responding to it.

Mark wrote:They really are mad as fish. Or am I mad for reading and responding to it.

Ooohh! I must go over & have a look, Maybe I can help out.

Arghiro wrote:

Mark wrote:They really are mad as fish. Or am I mad for reading and responding to it.

Ooohh! I must go over & have a look, Maybe I can help out.

Why do I fear you'll be joining in on the other side!

Maybe that's the answer. If I'm on the irrational side of the dispute I get to read lots of nice rational posts. It's only the rational side that have a frustrating wade through other people's swivel eyed madness.

You have nothing to fear, but fear itself.



& maybe a swift stab in the back.

Arghiro wrote:You have nothing to fear, but fear itself.

& maybe a swift stab in the back.

I've calmed down significantly since this morning, I think I could laugh at it! A classic instance of taking forums far too seriously.