At the risk of sounding slightly "over the top", I would strongly favour the reintroduction of the death penalty for breaches of weights and measures laws. Enough warning has been given of the changes to be made, that there is simply no excuse for continuing to use these ancient, incomprehensible, and quite frankly barbaric measurements. Anyone still not complying with the regulations of the 21st century should be punished most severely. I think if one takes time to reflect on these most grave crimes, the sentance of death is not as harsh as at first it might seem.

It is a proven fact, as has been pointed out before, that users of "imperial" measurements have a tendancy towards paedophilia. Thus the "culling" of imperial users from the population would therefore be likely to root out some of the less desirable members of our society. This would be a most welcome bonus effect of the proposed new laws.

I fully agree with The Major.

I wholeheartedly support the government's policy of going soft on unimportant crimes like drug-dealing, burglary and robbery. It's about time these trivial offences were treated with trivial sentences.

It's great news that cannabis is now smoked openly all over the country and that teenagers across the land can buy the Class A drug ecstasy for two or three quid a go. If people want to take the risk of death that's entirely up to them. And if people want to smoke as much dope as they want, placing themselves at far greater risk of mental hospital admission, why on earth shouldn't they?

The Lord Chief Justice's recent comments on burglary were also very sensible. He advocated that no burglar should be sent to prison for a first offence. Such clarity is hugely welcome! Burglars and householders all know where they stand - and only today the government announced that the prison population in the U.K. was at an all-time high of 74,000-plus. This *must* be reduced. And quite frankly, most burglars are poor and they people they steal from are rich.

By contrast, those who openly defy authority by selling in pounds and ounces deserve all they get. There is no worse offence than defying authority. Let's take a leaf out of the book of regimes who dealt sensibly with authority-resisters. Stalins's Russia which bumped off 30 million or so souls. Hitler's Germany. Today's Zimbabwe or Saudi Arabia.

John Bunyan got off lightly when he was merely sent to prison for preaching without permission.

St. George was left alive in prison for a far-too-tolerant two years before the Roman Empire finally had him executed for refusing to bow down to the Emperor's statue. In the 1550s, 284 Protestants in England were burnt to death for refusing to accept the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

And there was that Jesus Christ. He didn't accept the authority of the Scribes and Pharisees and look what happened to him. He even had the nerve to call them 'white-washed sepulchres'.

There's only one language these anti-authority people understand...

Good news at last

Tony agrees that people should be free to decide what to do with their own bodies

Tony agrees that all religeous beliefs should be tolerated (The Pope will be pleased)

Tony supports the ordination of gay bishops

Tony supports a penal system that sets out to reform rather than just take revenge

TOny supoports freedom

Tony is putting his time into the important things that face the world, not the trivial

Good news for all of us

Perhaps, at last, he is really understanding what Christ said

You read it here first

Well done Tony for this bold and honest statement

This will be quoted from now on

Tony supports hannging - where does he stand on "though shalt not kill"

A bit of a quandry that

"gay bishops" ??

"penal system" ??

This is turning into a porn site!

Desist that man without any credability!

Poor Steve

Let me just check my bank balance

...


...


...


nope!

Selling metric mesaures of beer in pubs is illegal, so do you think Andrea Schutz should be hanged for selling steins and flutes of her Austrian theme pub? No wait, as this is a case of using the metric system, bet you think the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

You'll be in favour of such a drastic punishment where it suits you. We do not approve of this threat of prosecution - no her pub DOESN'T constitute a threat to the imperial system as most people prefer pints anyway and respect The Cardinal's Hat as an Austrian experience (even some pro-metrics like yourself don't want to lose the pint).

"It is a proven fact, as has been pointed out before, that users of "imperial" measurements have a tendancy towards paedophilia. Thus the "culling" of imperial users from the population would therefore be likely to root out some of the less desirable members of our society. This would be a most welcome bonus effect of the proposed new laws"

Paedophiles, like anyone else, are more likely to be imperial users - market research shows that about 70% of the population prefer impperial and have a rather troubled understanding of metric measures, whoever and whatever they may be (just over half of under 25s are in the similar position).

Erm,

Frederick - I think you'll find that the original post was none other than Mr T.B. in fancy dress (being halloween soon) and posing as a metric nut-bag.

He was obviously too cunning this time!

re (Steve H): "Frederick - I think you'll find that the original post was none other than Mr T.B. in fancy dress (being Halloween soon) and posing as a metric nut-bag. He was obviously too cunning this time!"

REPLY: No. On this occasion the original poster is someone else. For some time I have been musing on the increasing tendency under this government to treat crimes like burglary, selling drugs and murder less seriously than it should and yet to penalise those who defy the thinking and wishes of the ruling elite, as in making selling by the pound a crime with a Level 4 tariff punishment (equivalent to common assault). It's all quite sinister, really, hence my spoof reply

Cannabis?

Alcohol?

Nicotine?

Barbiturates

Librium?

It would be interesting to know which ones you think should or should not be illegal and why

Cannabis?

> Make it totally legal, with an age restriction

Alcohol?

> Make it totally legal, with an age restriction

Nicotine?

> Make it totally legal, with an age restriction

Barbiturates

> Make it totally legal, with an age restriction

Librium?

> Make it totally legal, with an age restriction

I only partake in one of the above and prefer not to consume the others.
However I do not regard it the state's right to echo my opinion or restrict some drugs but not others on a "pick and choose" basis.
The (educated) people should be able to "pick and choose".

With the fear of saying someting (even more) unpopular I think class A drugs should be legalised too.

After all, suicide is legal.

Ok, I've put my flame retardant clothing on - fire away....

"I do not regard it the state's right to echo my opinion or restrict some drugs but not others on a "pick and choose" basis."

Except to young people evidently.

"After all, suicide is legal."

No it ain't.

Except to young people evidently.

Yeah - I know what you mean - can appear a bit hypocritical but I think the role of protection for those under a certain age is with the parents and not the state. So maybe you're right - but should we "protect" kids with bad parents? The boat's out on that one. I agree with you though maybe the state should not interfere and leave it to humans. Also - if the state does have to create that age restriction then what age should it be?
At what age does a child become responsible for giving himself lung cancer?

>>"After all, suicide is legal."

"No it ain't."

Ok - try this:

Kill yourself (or get someone else to kill themself).
Await police etc.
Make a note of what they charge the corpse with.


Or are you saying that the state should "look after you" after death too?

"Also - if the state does have to create that age restriction then what age should it be?
At what age does a child become responsible for giving himself lung cancer?"

16 in my opinion. We would do well to focus more on this age as the de facto age of majority.

"Ok - try this:

Kill yourself (or get someone else to kill themself).
Await police etc.
Make a note of what they charge the corpse with."

Of course, if I followed your instructions then you would now be implicated in my death. If assisting suicide is an offence then suicide itself must be.

PS: Either I didn't follow your instructions or something very weird is going on.

I think you'll find that suicide is not illegal.

And has been that way for many years.

Actually it is TRUE that many MANY years ago you would be hanged if found guilty of attepted suicide - strange really imagine the look on the defendant's face - glee I'd expect.

re (Credophile): "Cannabis? Alcohol? Nicotine? Barbiturates? Librium? It would be interesting to know which ones you think should or should not be illegal and why"

REPLY:

I believe cases of drunkenness and alcohol poisoning are rare in Saudi Arabia.

I believe there are far fewer people in Sweden (with a punitive attitude towards the sale of drugs) who are stoned, in psychiatric hospital or otherwise mentally ill than in countries such as Holland which has a liberal drug regime. Walk into any psychiatric hospital in London these days and you will see it crammed full with young dope-smokers, the vast majority from a certain ethnic group.

Much alcohol use by young people is encourgaed by drinks companies inventing 'alcopops' like 'Hooch'.

There is a balance to be reached, in respect of every potential harmful drug, between total prohibition and absolute freedom. My concern is that with the removal of practically all constraints on cannabis-smoking, for example, we will simply see more people stoned out of their minds in our mental hospital, not less - to give just one likley adverse consequence.

There is a road safety angle too. Many serious accidents have been caused throug drug abuse. Very few today would argue against strict limits on the amount of alcohol one can consume before driving. I favour random cannabis tests on motorists as well as random breath tests.

P.S. I do *not* favour more speed cameras. Did you know they're currently laying on-road cameras on the M4 (in the Cardiff/Severn Bridge area) to measure your average speed between two cameras? Don't say I didn't warn you

Sorry Tony, but you have not answered

Do you think people should be allowed to use these drugs or not?

One simple answer

As for your other comments such as:

"crammed full" (which implies that the majority are in this category)

I look forward to seeing the data that supports this assertion and to the research that says that this is solely as a result of using a substance rather than ther being social, historical, environmental etc contributory factors

If substance abuse is involved is itthe cause or the result of any other factor or influence

Again I await your answer with interest

If you want guidance on how to answer clearly look at Steve's post (6 above)

Incidentally, my experience in SA is obviously different from yours - Alcohol abuse there is quite frightening IME

When were you there?

"I think you'll find that suicide is not illegal.

And has been that way for many years.

Actually it is TRUE that many MANY years ago you would be hanged if found guilty of attepted suicide - strange really imagine the look on the defendant's face - glee I'd expect."

To be honest I don't know, but in the absence of a statute to the contrary it is a sin in the Christian tradition and I presume therefore a common law offence.

Erm

It's a sin to have an affair....