adios

"there are one or two that we are talking to who we don't need the club's permission for obvious reasons," That certainly sounds like Campbell, I'd be very happy to get rid of Boumsong and get Campbell in. Anyone else on a free that we would be interested in? Bernard? EDIT: Roeder did come out and say he wasn't after Campbell, it sounded like he meant he wasn't interested as opposed to Campbell not being interested.

My work here is done. I don't generally bother with that kind of thing, I just pick on people who should know better, like writers. Seriously, I don't know why you're so snobby on accents/pronunciation, the purpose is to communicate what you want to say clearly and efficiently, after that I couldn't give a shite.

I'd say do what you like and thumb your nose at the likes of Renton tbh.

The English language owes a little bit more than that to its two favourite countries, though for my money English is the greatest language I'm familiar with. At least one of France's greatest minds agrees, I've never asked a French man how he feels about that, I must put it on my list of things to do.

San Francisco does terrible things to a man.

I suppose it's a bit like trying on a jacket, deciding you like it, so stapling the fucker on.

Isn't there always? Huxley's "dystopia" might actually be the best we can hope for, to be honest. Obviously the dangers here are more Orwellian. I was making a distinction between attempted murder and murder, not 1st or 2nd degree, society seems to have more of a problem with random acts of violence than premeditated murder, anyway. On a complete separate note "an Huxley", how are you pronouncing that?

They tried everything but they couldn't get it out tbh.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, what purpose does keeping them alive (or half alive really) serve? But I think I'll probably buy that. I would deal with any attacks with a deadly weapon (knife, gun, cricket bat) as harshly as murder, to be honest, possibly even posession (never liked cricket anyway ). You may think that's barking but I'm still stunned that emotionally developed people see justice as a means of punishment, as opposed to a tool which protects and improves society.

No, I was on about the death penalty above that, and had just clarified twice I wasn't referring to the two lads. If it's any consolation I find you equally difficult to understand.

I'm hoping that's not directed at me. 166452[/snapback] What you on about? 166485[/snapback] It's difficult to make that any clearer... You said (roughly translated) "I don't know how you could judge them to death penalty", was the "you" in that sentence, me?

I'm not waiting for a murder on the metro, I'm saying that it's equally serious that probably the majority of people in the World today would feel unsafe walking from one end of their own city to the other. I don't know what the obsession is purely with death, quality of life has to be equally important, surely? I don't know how you can say that we have no moral right to kill, and then dismiss the notion that we have no moral right to imprison someone as one for the philosophers. I would take imprisoning someone for the rest of their natural lives as seriously as taking their life, I presume if someone was basically going to kill anyone they met you would agree with lifelong incarceration?

Singapore? I take the fact that you don't feel safe on the metro very seriously. If we have no moral right to take a life, what right do we have to imprison one?

Sorry, but I see that argument similarly to the argument about arming the police. The US is always cited as the example as to why the police should not be armed, when it works well in countless other countries. I agree that extreme caution would need to be exercised, but I would like to be open-minded about the possibility of keeping the option available.

I'm hoping that's not directed at me.

I've explicitly said I wasn't talking about the two boys, I would tend to agree with you on that. I can see where you're coming from, but not every country that has the death penalty ends up with a final solution. I don't think that you can necessarily say that the sensible removal of the worst elements of society ends in the fairly horrific removal of people who just don't quite fit in. I'm not necessarily advocating it as the only solution, but law & order appears to be in a fair bit of trouble all over the world and a solution needs to be found. Basic respect is out the window.

On the death penalty, I agree with you about revenge , but what about purely from the point of view of removing 'undesirables' from the system? I don't mean in the specific instance of these two boys, but generally.

Don't fancy getting smacked in the testicle with something that can chip concrete, either.

Does that mean we might have caught Snopes out on something? Well they said "potientially deadly little projectile", which I suppose it is if it hits an eye.

It does, it sounds exactly like something made up to scare kids, but it was more the principle I was talking about, Snopes reckons it's possible. And considering it's apparently a relatively popular pass time the odds of it happening at some point are drastically reduced.

Presumably it can't gather enough force if just dropped, but if it were projected at high speeds it could do damage? I think I remember a story about a kid being killed by a penny he'd left on the tracks that had flown off when the train hit it and essentially turned into a bullet.

Aye, was thinking that when I read it earlier. Top man.

I'm not at all surprised by that one, why would people think otherwise? Can you remember the details of the penny one? I'm certainly guilty of believing that one!

Yeah, that sounds about right.