Capital punishment

[Guest pelmetman]

Had Enough - 2013-07-10 10:04 AM

 

 

If these monsters had been hanged or imprisoned for life (whichever is your flavour of the month) then several innocent men and women would be alive today.

 

I point I raised earlier but conveniently ignored by the abolitionists ;-)................

 

As Logic and the facts dictate.......that the chance of being murdered by a released murderer, are far higher than the chances of being hung by mistake *-)................

[malc d]

pelmetman - 2013-07-10 11:45 AM

 

 

As Logic and the facts dictate.......that the chance of being murdered by a released murderer, are far higher than the chances of being hung by mistake *-)................

 

 

Surely hanging someone " by mistake " would be murder ?

 

Or should we just see it as a bit of bad luck for someone ( and his family ) ?

 

:-(

[Guest pelmetman]

malc d - 2013-07-10 12:06 PM

 

pelmetman - 2013-07-10 11:45 AM

 

 

As Logic and the facts dictate.......that the chance of being murdered by a released murderer, are far higher than the chances of being hung by mistake *-)................

 

 

Surely hanging someone " by mistake " would be murder ?

 

Or should we just see it as a bit of bad luck for someone ( and his family ) ?

 

:-(

 

Compared to how many murderers have gone onto kill again Malc?................its a numbers game ;-)..........and so far the numbers are all on the side of the killers *-)..........

[antony1969]

Had Enough - 2013-07-10 10:04 AM

 

This morning the Daily Telegraph has published the details and photos of the forty-odd prisoners who are on whole-life tariffs Don't read it if you are of a sensitive disposition! Some of their crimes are so bestial as to almost defy comprehension.

 

But what stands out is the number of them who killed once once, were imprisoned, subsequently released and then went on to commit even more horrific murders.

 

If these monsters had been hanged or imprisoned for life (whichever is your flavour of the month) then several innocent men and women would be alive today.

 

 

Frank , have read the same , how can anyone fight against capital punishment after reading that ?

Still " the wets " will fight against it I'm sure , sympathy should lie with the relatives of the victims of these beasts surely and not the offenders

[malc d]

pelmetman - 2013-07-10 12:11 PM

 

malc d - 2013-07-10 12:06 PM

 

pelmetman - 2013-07-10 11:45 AM

 

 

As Logic and the facts dictate.......that the chance of being murdered by a released murderer, are far higher than the chances of being hung by mistake *-)................

 

 

Surely hanging someone " by mistake " would be murder ?

 

Or should we just see it as a bit of bad luck for someone ( and his family ) ?

 

:-(

 

Compared to how many murderers have gone onto kill again Malc?................its a numbers game ;-)..........and so far the numbers are all on the side of the killers *-)..........

 

 

The reason that murderers have gone on to murder again is because they were released - not because they weren't hung !

 

The answer is not to let the b*******s out !

 

That's what I call logical.

 

Hanging people who are innocent is NOT a numbers game if you are the one who is hanging.

 

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

malc d - 2013-07-10 12:34 PM

 

pelmetman - 2013-07-10 12:11 PM

 

malc d - 2013-07-10 12:06 PM

 

pelmetman - 2013-07-10 11:45 AM

 

 

As Logic and the facts dictate.......that the chance of being murdered by a released murderer, are far higher than the chances of being hung by mistake *-)................

 

 

Surely hanging someone " by mistake " would be murder ?

 

Or should we just see it as a bit of bad luck for someone ( and his family ) ?

 

:-(

 

Compared to how many murderers have gone onto kill again Malc?................its a numbers game ;-)..........and so far the numbers are all on the side of the killers *-)..........

 

 

The reason that murderers have gone on to murder again is because they were released - not because they weren't hung !

 

The answer is not to let the b*******s out !

 

That's what I call logical.

 

Hanging people who are innocent is NOT a numbers game if you are the one who is hanging.

 

 

 

I agree Malc ;-).................not letting them out would be a start *-).................but the professional apologists cant help themselves :-S...............and keep wanting to let them go *-).........so innocent people get murdered to salve the perverted moral compasses of the loony liberal elite >:-(

[CliveH]

Frank - Still say you are not up to speed on this.

 

Having a company car for someone as you say does little company mileage is not really a viable option now for the individual. Far better to give them an allowance. Both for them and for the company.

 

The company in particular has to find the capital to purchase the vehicle, and insure it. Then

 

It only works well if you are a Director and pay yourself a low salary and Dividends and you want a prestige car, OR - you run a fleet of reps who do a high mileage.

 

The way you spoke Frank I assumed you gave your employees a huge benefit that they would be eternally grateful for. Instead you once again assume that i am having some sort of personal dig at you.

 

I am not - but I do think you are wrong and could do better.

 

This is from one of the business briefings we have on file from earlier this year:-

 

.............................

 

"The company car tax system clearly disadvantages many company car drivers. For some, the company car no longer represents good value because the tax they pay exceeds the cost they would incur if they simply took extra salary from their employer and acquired their own car.

 

Some employers – particularly those with lots of ”perk” cars – have long believed that the administration of a car fleet is an unnecessary burden. In the mid-1990s American businesses operating in the UK started to move away from company cars and simply added an amount to their employees’ salaries to compensate for the withdrawal of the car. The perk car culture is less well established in the USA and these companies had always questioned whether they should be providing company cars. Rising levels of car benefit tax gave them the opportunity to withdraw this benefit.

 

If their company car is withdrawn, many employees will still need a car in order to carry out their jobs, so they pay for this themselves out of their increased salary, receiving a mileage allowance for each business mile driven.

 

Employers have adopted several different cash-for-car approaches:

 

- Some have given their staff the option to have a car or take extra salary. Employees like to have a cash option available to them, even when they don’t take it up.

 

- Some have introduced employer-sponsored personal contract purchase schemes (PCP), in which they introduce their staff to a leasing company that provides fully maintained cars.

 

- Some have introduced employee car ownership schemes (ECOs), which change the legal structure of the company car scheme but leave the operational aspects largely unchanged (see earlier article).

 

- Some have introduced salary sacrifice schemes (see earlier article).

 

- And some have stopped providing cars altogether, paid extra salary and left their employees to fend for themselves.

 

Cash-for-car schemes can generate significant savings. You need to decide who will benefit from these. If the company keeps them you may find it hard to encourage employees to opt out of their company cars. If they are shared between the company and the employees you have to decide how these will be split. If the savings are all passed to the employees you will encourage take-up but this is not ideal for the shareholders.

 

It makes sense to work with a leasing company to introduce a cash-for-car scheme, to help your employees get a car through a lease or PCP agreement.

 

Given the choice between cash or car, an employee has to decide which to take. They have to calculate their cash receipts and payments (including tax) under both scenarios, and a good employer will help them to do this. These calculations are complicated. Doing the sums and explaining them to a single driver is time-consuming but for a large group it is awesome. Once again, a leasing company can help here.

 

There is a danger that a badly set up cash-for-car scheme will fail to remove the car benefit tax from the employee. You should be wary of guaranteeing your employees’ payment obligations (or actually paying these liabilities) under PCP or PCH arrangements. You may trigger a tax liability.

 

In all cases, it makes sense to clear the scheme with HM Revenue and Customs.

 

If you offer a cash allowance instead of a company car, you will save the cost of the Class 1A National Insurance contributions, any cash allowance you pay to an employee in lieu of his company car will be fully taxable, you will pay Class 1 employer’s NIC and the employee will pay Class 1 NIC on the cash allowance."

 

You will need to pay a mileage allowance when the employee uses their private vehicle on company business. So long as this is not above the level of HM Revenue and Customs Approved Mileage Allowance Payments (AMAP) the employee will have no tax or NIC liability on these payments. If the mileage rate paid is less than the AMAP, the employee can claim the shortfall as an additional amount of tax relief in their tax return.

 

If the payment exceeds the AMAP levels, the excess over the AMAP level will be taxable at the employee’s marginal rate.

 

If you wish to adopt a cash-for-car scheme, it makes sense to pay the employee the full amount of the AMAP (on which they pay no tax or National Insurance contributions) and a lower level of cash allowance (on which they pay tax and possibly Class 1 National Insurance, and on which the employer pays Class 1A National Insurance).

 

This could be better than paying a higher cash allowance and a lower mileage rate.

 

You can give employees interest-free loans of up to £5,000 to help them buy their own vehicles. There is no income tax charge on this benefit so long as the loan is fully repayable, and it is indeed repaid and not written-off. This loan can be used as a deposit towards a finance or lease agreement and it will therefore reduce the monthly payments the employee has to make to the funder/lessor. In practice, most employers prefer not to offer such a loan.

 

You need to give very careful consideration to setting up a cash-for-car scheme and also decide whether any savings should be kept by the company or shared with the employees.

 

............................................

 

Just because others have differing opinion/knowledge levels that you does not mean that they are attacking you personally Frank. Please act your age Frank and accept that other peoples way of doing things may be different to the way you have always done things but that does not make them "wrong"

 

Your attitude to anyone that does not think as you do seems to make you rude and belligerent. It also makes you read things that are not there. I actually suggested you talk to your accountant about the Company car issue.

 

Frank - do yourself a favour - read the above and try to see it as an option to consider - not a personal criticism against you! :-S

 

 

 

[malc d]

pelmetman - 2013-07-10 2:29 PM

 

 

 

.......so innocent people get murdered to salve the perverted moral compasses of the loony liberal elite >:-(

 

 

 

Well - I am totally with you there Dave.

 

Innocent people should not be murdered, especially not by mistake.

 

 

:-(

[Guest pelmetman]

malc d - 2013-07-10 2:48 PM

 

pelmetman - 2013-07-10 2:29 PM

 

 

 

.......so innocent people get murdered to salve the perverted moral compasses of the loony liberal elite >:-(

 

 

 

Well - I am totally with you there Dave.

 

Innocent people should not be murdered, especially not by mistake.

 

 

:-(

 

To be honest Malc ;-)..............I think most of us members of the "hangem and flogem club" would be happy if they just kept them locked up *-)

[CliveH]

There used to be a saying - "If you cannot do the time - do not do the crime"

 

But now it seems more like "If you would not mind spending a bit of time out of circulation we will let you go back to your criminal ways at the earliest opportunity - and sorry of any inconvenience"

 

:-S

[Guest Had Enough]

CliveH - 2013-07-10 2:29 PM

 

Frank - Still say you are not up to speed on this.

Having a company car for someone as you say does little company mileage is not really a viable option now for the individual. Far better to give them an allowance. Both for them and for the company.

 

 

Really? You'll forgive me if I don't attach a lot of credence to a man who couldn't work out why my staff only pay eight pounds a week in income tax for their company cars!

 

So let's get this straight, instead of giving my staff a modest car which costs them peanuts each week, your solution would be to lend them £5000, which they'll have to repay over a reasonable period. They'll then have to finance another five or six thousand to buy the car. That will have to be paid over a reasonable period!

 

They then have to pay tax and insurance and other running costs. yep, they're going to jump at that!

 

I could then pay them say, an extra £3K a year on which they'll have to pay tax and N.I. netting them about £2000, which wouldn't even cover their repayment costs, let alone tax and insurance and other maintenance. Over six years that would cost me £20,000 including my employer's N.I. Total depreciation on the cars in question is £8K plus six years tax and insurance and maybe some servicing and tyres. Do the maths!

 

My accountant tells me that having examined my policy, of buying modest cars, running them for five or six years so that depreciation is much lower when averaged over this long period than if we swapped them every two or three years, he believes it makes very good sense, bearing in mind as well what we want to do for the staff.

 

Plus we don't have to borrow to buy the cars so capital investment isn't a worry. We get next to nothing on our cash surplus as we need to call on it at short notice for large purchases, often of six figures.

 

You have suggested that my accountants don't know what they're doing and that you could offer better advice. As I said, there has been a revolution in BIK costs owing to the low emissions of modern cars. I've already told you that our next car will cost my managers six pounds a week.

 

And you think they'd swap that to end up borrowing £11K to run, tax and insure their own vehicle?

 

Do me a favour Clive. I don't want your theories. Please stick to being an IFA and leave my business decisions to me and my business accountants!

 

Now let's look at some things you've said:

 

"Some employers – particularly those with lots of ”perk” cars – have long believed that the administration of a car fleet is an unnecessary burden. In the mid-1990s American businesses operating in the UK started to move away from company cars and simply added an amount to their employees’ salaries to compensate for the withdrawal of the car."

 

That was twenty years ago! Emissions rated BIK has changed all that, especially for modest low-emission cars, which I've proved - eight pounds a week Clive, soon to be as low as six pounds!

 

"It only works well if you are a Director and pay yourself a low salary and Dividends and you want a prestige car,"

 

No matter what your salary or dividends you'll still pay 40% income tax on 35% of a very expensive car, which may only be worth £30K as it may be three years old, but has a list price of £70K.

 

The BIK on that would be £10,500 p.a for a car worth £30k. I know this Clive because we've been there! And whether your salary is high or low and whether you pay dividends or not if you're a 40% tax payer, you're a 40% tax payer! Have you really worked this out?

 

"I simply feel you are not getting the best from them (The other "professionals) - The depreciation on the cars was a classic example. Add to that the P11D tax hit for the individual and what you say just screams for someone to put you on the right track. ".

 

I've already pointed out the depreciation issue and you don't need to be an accountant to know that running a car for five or six years means that depreciations is far lower than swapping every two. And each year we write of 25% on the reducing balance!

 

And putting the other "professionals" in inverted commas is insulting to a company that's guided me successfully for thirty years and examined my particular needs and understands why I prefer to give my staff the least expensive and most trouble free way of running a car. Something that seems to be escaping you!

 

"The P11D benefits for the individual are based upon the list price of the car and by my calculations (From the HMRC website) it is a lot more than £8 a week for even the most basic of Corsa's that are "fully expensed as you originally said to me!

 

- but now you say "except fuel". "

 

Well of course I mentioned that we don't pay for free fuel as that then incurs a totally separate BIK which is based on nothing more than the car's value! For low mileage drivers it's silly to have fuel benefit! But we do pay all the other running costs and it's a pity that you feel the need to mention the fuel aspect in the context that I tried to evade it and have just remembered it. As I said, I've been doing this for years!

 

Finally, I have asked my staff. We don't impose this on them but when ever asked if they would like the responsibility of running a modest company car for next to nothing or having a pay rise and buying and running their own car, the answer is always the same! No thanks boss, let's stick to the current system!

 

I value my key staff and I want to make their lives as easy as possible. That's one reason why we're successful, we have good people who are happy!

 

Do me a favour Clive, I never asked for your advice and I don't want it. I prefer the advice of my qualified business accountants and I prefer to do what my staff want as well. As I said, I'll happily listen to you for anything concerning investments, pensions etc. but running a prime-location stock-heavy retail business is not something that you appear to be an expert at, proven by your suggestion that I don't rent but purchase prime location retail units. Do you really have any idea what they would cost?

 

Just for once try to leave this alone without making comments such as this:

 

"Oh sorry Frank.

 

When you said "Company Cars" - I assumed something worthy of the name. "

 

or

 

"Perhaps Alex Polizzi ???"

 

Let this be an end to it - please!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Had Enough]

malc d - 2013-07-10 12:34 PM

 

The reason that murderers have gone on to murder again is because they were released - not because they weren't hung !

 

The answer is not to let the b*******s out !

 

That's what I call logical.

 

Hanging people who are innocent is NOT a numbers game if you are the one who is hanging.

 

 

 

In order to stop Malcolm coming round and assaulting me with a garden fork I'm trying to do one 'On Topic' post for every 'Off Topic' post that good old Clive keeps forcing me into! ;-)

 

I can't disagree and clearly they wouldn't have killed again if they'd been incarcerated for life.

 

But there's a bit of a flaw there! The mindset that disapproves of capital punishment for crimes that are so bestial and cruel as to make some of us feel ill, is the same mindset that, once it's been abolished eventually starts to see long prison terms as also being inhumane and cruel.

 

Hence we have ever-shortening sentences for crimes that, two generations ago, merited hanging and the proof of the pudding is this latest proclamation that long sentences are contrary to a prisoner's human rights!

 

As has been said, the chances of hanging the wrong man have receded dramatically owing to DNA and far better forensics but I would not hang anyone on anything but concrete proof, and we have that on many occasions. No concrete proof or only circumstantial evidence would mean life in prison.

 

For every wrongful conviction we've had many more innocent deaths by recidivists. It's a moral dilemma, is it acceptable to occasionally hang one wrong person if ten lives are saved by hanging murderers so that they can never murder again?

 

The dilemma doesn't exist of course if life really meant life, but will it ever?

 

Of course we'll now get "It wouldn't be acceptable if it was you." To which I'll reply in advance, "It would be acceptable if I or one of my family was one of the ten killed by a recidivist."

 

 

 

 

[CliveH]

Frank - you are determined to find an offence against you where none was intended or inferred.

 

The comment in the article re the Americans and the 1990's is exactly as it reads - once again you read what is not their. The Company car policy within the UK changed significantly - starting in the 1990's.

 

The £8 figure works for a basic Corsa without fuel BIK. But you specifically stated that the cars were "Fully expensed"

 

Just calm down - read the article again and take it ALL in - not just the bits you want to get yourself all wound up about!.

 

I am not giving you advice.

 

I am telling you that most other businesses that had company cars for workers who do little milage found that providing them with a company car was more expensive than the other options now available.

 

But of course Frank can do no wrong so attack the messenger. But sadly even my saying that will probably get you frothing at the mouth. JHC Frank - you have even managed to take offence at my using parenthesise! What the hell are you on?

 

It is this lack of ability of yours to see or to accommodate ideas and concepts outside your frame of reference that I find so strange.

 

 

[donna miller]

Sensible answer to all this bickering over company car tax, who's right, who's wrong.

 

Get yourself a nice twin cab pick-up like the new Navara and pay a flat rate fee to the tax man, classed as a commercial so benefits all round.

My last one (as a company vehicle) cost me about £650 a year.

[CliveH]

Agreed Donna - depending upon usage. My son who is a Thatcher uses my Discovery currently and a TA trailer but it is not ideal and I worry about the poor thing (the Discovery B-)) as she is normally pampered by me.

 

We have been looking at the Ford Ranger (Mazda in all but name) and the T HiLux.

 

And the tax treatment - as you say is very good.

 

The HiLux is just £270 a month as a lease - very attractive.

 

But we have heard of bottom end issues with Navara's.

 

Did you have any issue?

[Guest Had Enough]

CliveH - 2013-07-10 4:59 PM

 

Frank - you are determined to find an offence against you where none was intended or inferred.

 

The comment in the article re the Americans and the 1990's is exactly as it reads - once again you read what is not their. The Company car policy within the UK changed significantly - starting in the 1990's.

 

The £8 figure works for a basic Corsa without fuel BIK. But you specifically stated that the cars were "Fully expensed"

 

Just calm down - read the article again and take it ALL in - not just the bits you want to get yourself all wound up about!.

 

I am not giving you advice.

 

I am telling you that most other businesses that had company cars for workers who do little milage found that providing them with a company car was more expensive than the other options now available.

 

But of course Frank can do no wrong so attack the messenger. But sadly even my saying that will probably get you frothing at the mouth. JHC Frank - you have even managed to take offence at my using parenthesise! What the hell are you on?

 

It is this lack of ability of yours to see or to accommodate ideas and concepts outside your frame of reference that I find so strange.

 

 

First of all I'm not offended but I confess to being slightly exasperated which is very different. The business that you've introduced about fuel supply is total nitpicking and you seem to be implying that I'm not even aware of the difference in supplying fuel or not doing!

 

My car policy is carefully thought out to benefit my managers and to make their life free of the stress of running a car privately. Any young man with a family and mortgage will know that his car suddenly needing a new clutch or four new tyres,can be worrying. And as I've already told you, it's a vital tool in retention and recruitment.

 

What is annoying is that you constantly imply that we've never looked at alternatives. We always consider the options. We talk it through with our accountants and we run the spreadsheets.

 

My situation is very different from most firms. The capital investment in small cars is no problem, we have lots of cash. And no matter how many times you ignore it there is no doubting that there's been a massive reduction in BIK for small energy efficient cars as opposed to when BIK was based purely on the value at, if memory serves about 35%.

 

My staff love it. I love it as we can prove that by running them for six years they cost very little over such a period, just the same as running a family car. It's always cheaper to almost run them into the ground than replace them every two years and suffer higher depreciation.

 

We are not some big American company with hundreds of cars that need fleet managers, or some strap-cashed firm that wants to avoid capital expenditure. Running our tiny fleet of a dozen cars is a doddle!

 

So please, we have looked at the options and what we do suits us and our type of operation.

 

And you didn't put professionals in parenthesis. That is totally different. Parenthesis is a separate cause which is inserted in a sentence to qualify a statement. That's a bit clumsy but I'm sure you know what I mean.

 

Your act of simply highlighting a word as you did by putting it in inverted commas suggests that you are mocking the subject.

 

For example if someone wrote: "The "professionals" that you use don't impress me." clearly insinuates that the writer believes that they are not professionals. Why would you put it in commas?

 

It is annoying as I know that the people we were discussing are professionals and do not deserve their professionalism to be questioned in this way.

 

I have told you several times now that I do respect your professionalism as an IFA, and I do, despite what I may have said when we were daggers drawn in the past but I do not welcome your continuing advice and your continuing assertions that we're not doing it right and that we're not even considering alternatives.

 

So please, can we wrap this up now and talk about the much more important subject of stringing people up?

 

[Guest Had Enough]

donna miller - 2013-07-10 5:28 PM

 

Sensible answer to all this bickering over company car tax, who's right, who's wrong.

 

Get yourself a nice twin cab pick-up like the new Navara and pay a flat rate fee to the tax man, classed as a commercial so benefits all round. My last one (as a company vehicle) cost me about £650 a year.

 

Yes, but they wouldn't let me in the golf club car park! ;-) Haven't they closed that loophole yet? I used to know a bloke who drove an expensive 4x4 but with no rear windows, so he was taxed as if it were a van. Last I heard was the the boys from the revenue were looking at that very closely!

[pepe63xnotuse]

....Not much changes over here does it?

 

I just popped over to see what gems Chatterbox was uncovering concerning "Capital Punishment"..

 

Only to find that it seems that the "capital" in question ,is the "wealth"(or not?) of it's resident "Business Executives"..and the "punishment" is having to trawl through still more " who can pi** the highest,up the executive washroom wall.." type malarkey..... *-)

 

 

For supposedly mature and successful businessmen, there is a hell of a lot of time spent posting on the ar*e end of some piddly little MH forum....? 8-)

 

 

Clive.. Yes there were issues with the Navara D22 "bottom end"( the con rods, I believe)

 

http://www.navaraownersclub.com/2009/10/the-infamous-d22-engine-problem/

 

 

 

[donna miller]

CliveH - 2013-07-10 5:46 PM

 

Agreed Donna - depending upon usage. My son who is a Thatcher uses my Discovery currently and a TA trailer but it is not ideal and I worry about the poor thing (the Discovery B-)) as she is normally pampered by me.

 

We have been looking at the Ford Ranger (Mazda in all but name) and the T HiLux.

 

And the tax treatment - as you say is very good.

 

The HiLux is just £270 a month as a lease - very attractive.

 

But we have heard of bottom end issues with Navara's.

 

Did you have any issue?

 

Most of the issues were with the older Navara's, i.e. the D22, the newer D40's were fine, I had no problem with mine.

be careful of the Toyota if you get an import model, there are serious problems with the washers used on the injector systems which allowed build up of carbon in the oil.

Of the twin cab family, the Nissan is the more powerful engine (174 bhp) but for looks then the Mitsubishi wins hands down. My Navara was an auto and returned about 28 mpg round town up to high 30's on a motorway run. I did manage 44 mpg on a long motorway drive with the cruise control set @60.

Biggest negative for me was that I had to pay the higher rate to come over the Severn bridge.

[Mel B]

Aaaaaarrrrrghhhhhhhhhh ... now others are joining in the bl**dy 'business tax' discussions .... *-)

[CliveH]

Donna - Pepe - many thanks for your info.

 

Looks are not that important but reliability is.

 

The practicality of these things just seems to tick all the boxes.

[John 47]

pelmetman - 2013-07-10 11:45 AM

 

Had Enough - 2013-07-10 10:04 AM

 

 

If these monsters had been hanged or imprisoned for life (whichever is your flavour of the month) then several innocent men and women would be alive today.

 

I point I raised earlier but conveniently ignored by the abolitionists ;-)................

 

As Logic and the facts dictate.......that the chance of being murdered by a released murderer, are far higher than the chances of being hung by mistake *-)................

 

"As logic and the facts dictate...." Do they? Where are the figures to back that up? And as I said before (and you conveniently ignored) there have been several studies that show the chances of a conviction for murder are much greater if the penalty isn't death. So as well as all those wrongly hanged, you have to add into the equation all those whose murderers were allowed to go free by juries reluctant to convict (some of whom might well have gone on to murder again).

 

In other words, it is almost impossible to work out whether more innocent people die when there is a death penalty than die when the penalty is imprisonment - so logic and facts do not dictate in this case.

 

However, somebody said earlier that if sentences were longer then logically there would be fewer offences committed by released murderers. Logic does dictate here - and I am all in favour of logic! :-D

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

John 47 - 2013-07-11 2:16 PM

 

pelmetman - 2013-07-10 11:45 AM

 

Had Enough - 2013-07-10 10:04 AM

 

 

If these monsters had been hanged or imprisoned for life (whichever is your flavour of the month) then several innocent men and women would be alive today.

 

I point I raised earlier but conveniently ignored by the abolitionists ;-)................

 

As Logic and the facts dictate.......that the chance of being murdered by a released murderer, are far higher than the chances of being hung by mistake *-)................

 

"As logic and the facts dictate...." Do they? Where are the figures to back that up? And as I said before (and you conveniently ignored) there have been several studies that show the chances of a conviction for murder are much greater if the penalty isn't death. So as well as all those wrongly hanged, you have to add into the equation all those whose murderers were allowed to go free by juries reluctant to convict (some of whom might well have gone on to murder again).

 

In other words, it is almost impossible to work out whether more innocent people die when there is a death penalty than die when the penalty is imprisonment - so logic and facts do not dictate in this case.

 

However, somebody said earlier that if sentences were longer then logically there would be fewer offences committed by released murderers. Logic does dictate here - and I am all in favour of logic! :-D

 

 

In recent years I can not recall anyone being wrongly imprisoned for murder :-S.............yet I have read reports, all to often of people who have been released and have gone on to kill again, the most recent only last week *-)

 

But I and everyone with a logical mind would agree ;-)....................if they're kept locked up then they cant kill innocent people........................but apparently that's against their human rights *-)..................which brings us back to how to keep them away from Joe public..................we either lock them up and throw away the key............or let them swing >:-).........and as long as we have the system run by professional apologists *-)................they'll keep getting out 8-)

 

I wonder if any of the people in authority who sign on the dotted line to let these creatures out, have any sense of remorse when their loony liberal ideal's mean another innocent person gets killed by the nutter they've let loose........................nah .......I doubt it *-)..................I bet they don't even lose their job >:-).......

[John 47]

pelmetman - 2013-07-11 2:40 PM

 

In recent years I can not recall anyone being wrongly imprisoned for murder :-S.............yet I have read reports, all to often of people who have been released and have gone on to kill again, the most recent only last week *-)

 

 

Figures? Or is this just an impression created by the press? Unless you put figures to it then there is nothing to back it up. Also, I note that you continue to ignore the awkward (for you) point about juries being less likely to convict under the death penalty.

 

We do, however, agree about length of sentence.

 

 

[CliveH]

There is a genuine concern about lenient sentences and killers being released to kill again.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16638227

 

These figs indicate an average number of murders being about 600 a year.

 

The article cites 29 murderers who repeated and 6 murderers who went on to commit Manslaughter.

 

So a bit on licence and that = 35 over 10 years.

 

So as a percentage of all murders that is c. 0.58%. Low of course - but I would suggest that given the average person probability of committing such a crime this 0.58% is worryingly high.