Rigby Killers Plead Not Guilty...

[Mr Mosquito]

Simplistic ??!!

Perhaps, yes ! but why overcomplicate things ?

Issues like this are made needlessly complicated. Lawyers and judges procrastinate over things, at our expense, for months on end, when sometimes things are glaringly obvious.

You say there is no such thing as 100% ,so what exactly is the probability of their guilt ?

I don't know why you claim the death penalty is somehow sick, perhaps you would like to explain ?

If those two murderers get life sentences, then it should mean life - with no pity taken upon them when they are old and grey either.

And regular visits to their cells by half a dozen serving squaddies wouldn't go amiss either !

I totally agree with you. What makes our criminal justice system the laughing stock of the world is the lawyers themselves who as you write "procrastinate over things, at our expense, for months on end, when sometimes things are glaringly obvious".

The great bard William Shakespeare had the right idea in Henry VI. Dick the Butcher to Jack Cade...........

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

[nebristolred]

Simplistic ??!!

Perhaps, yes ! but why overcomplicate things ?

Issues like this are made needlessly complicated. Lawyers and judges procrastinate over things, at our expense, for months on end, when sometimes things are glaringly obvious.

You say there is no such thing as 100% ,so what exactly is the probability of their guilt ?

I don't know why you claim the death penalty is somehow sick, perhaps you would like to explain ?

If those two murderers get life sentences, then it should mean life - with no pity taken upon them when they are old and grey either.

And regular visits to their cells by half a dozen serving squaddies wouldn't go amiss either !

Sorry, didn't mean to offend in saying simplistic, I was more getting at the fact that there are very few clear cut cases.

You are correct, lawyers and judges procrastinate (often with necessity). We would all be the first to complain if a judges haste wrongly puts you in prison. Not only that, this is precisely what makes the death penalty much, much more expensive than imprisonment for life.

Well, their probability of guilt would be depending on the case. In order to satisfy guilt, you need to satisfy that a) the crime has been committed and b) the defendant either intentionally or recklessly committed the crime (for most offences anyway). You can never prove that a defendant definitely committed a crime intentionally, without mental illness, psychological disorder, peer pressure, etc. There are a huge number of factors that can contribute, and the role of psychology is incredibly misunderstood. A murderer with learning difficulties who didn't necessarily realise what he was doing for instance, is not "as bad" as the stereotypical cold-blooded murderer.

And finally, you can't see how the death penalty is sick? Really? In giving the death penalty, that makes the state just as bad as the offender! It's hypocrisy. You're teaching the world that it is wrong to kill people, and in order to show how wrong it is, you are going to kill someone yourself. It makes zero sense.

And that's without even mentioning the inevitable wrongful murder of an innocent person.

Finally, the death penalty is not a deterrent. It does not change the number of murders. If that is the case, then what is the point? Taking a life just for the public's satisfaction? No thanks.

[nebristolred]

I totally agree with you. What makes our criminal justice system the laughing stock of the world is the lawyers themselves who as you write "procrastinate over things, at our expense, for months on end, when sometimes things are glaringly obvious".

The great bard William Shakespeare had the right idea in Henry VI. Dick the Butcher to Jack Cade...........

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

With all due respect, do you have any idea what you are talking about? We are not the laughing stock of the world. People ENVY our legal system. It sounds like you have no clue!

Lawyers in this country are nowhere near as bad as the stereotypical American lawyer...

[Mr Mosquito]

They'd already converted to Christianity by then, Gobbers. And don't forget that the Normans were themselves originally Vikings.

Of course, the main problem with that analogy is that there were fairly small numbers of Vikings, but many millions of potential jihadis.

The Christian Crusades were against the Pagans of the North (the Vikings) and against the Muslims of the East. The Normans were the chief executors of the Pope's will regarding this. My own ancestry is more Norman-French than anything else and this is why I've taken an interest in this subject over the years. The following YouTube video is the best I could find for an explanation of this and how the Crusades helped unify Christian Europe........

How the Crusades Saved Europe and America......

[Davros]

See what happens if I dont chip in and add a little bit of balance, though I do think if your going to go around executing people in the name of Islam you should probably suffer that same fate from the state. God is not pleased by people who represent his faith in a bad light.

[chipdawg]

The Christian Crusades were against the Pagans of the North (the Vikings) and against the Muslims of the East. The Normans were the chief executors of the Pope's will regarding this. My own ancestry is more Norman-French than anything else and this is why I've taken an interest in this subject over the years. The following YouTube video is the best I could find for an explanation of this and how the Crusades helped unify Christian Europe........

How the Crusades Saved Europe and America......

I can't decide whether your revisionist history of Europe is wilfully ignorant or whether you've been misinformed. Lets start with what a crusade actually is, rather than a romanticised version of it. A crusade was a call to arms by the papacy, where in return for military service all sins were absolved and your path to heaven was clear. Therefore, any man participating in the the crusade could go off to battle safe in the knowledge that if they were killed they would be guaranteed a place in heaven. In that respect, its incredibly similar in theological doctrine to the idea behind islamic martyrdom that has been discussed elsewhere.

In theory crusades were meant to be fighting in the name of God against threats to his word, but in actuality they were often against political opponents of the pope- an example of this was a 13th century crusade against a Sicillian patrician who was a political enemy of the incumbent popes family

There were 8/9 (depending on your pov) 'classical' crusades against the Muslims in the east. The first achieved little but the second captures Jerusalem and set up he idea of crusader states. It should be noted that when the crusaders captured Jerusalem the inhabitants were slaughtered on mass; this is relevant because the 3rd crusade- which was notable for there being 3 separate crusading armies, one of which never made it to the holy land and the other two actually fought battles against each other- ended when Saladin offered safe passage for all Christians out of Jerusalem and continued safe passage for unarmed pilgrims who want to visit the city. He kept his word, but the Catholics were not as magnanimous, launching the 4th crusade. This one is also notable because it never made it further than Italy- the Venitians offered passage to the holy land in exchange for a little bit of military muscle, which in turn resulted in the death of many Christians at the hands of other Christians and the crusaders essentially getting bored and going home. In the subsequent crusades, interest began to wane and less and less noblemen went to fight. We should remember at this point that while all men who fought had their sins absolved, only the nobles had a choice in the matter and as a result, many European countries were broke as no one was working the fields or producing goods. They were also paying hefty ransoms for captured nobles. This directly led to the conflict between England and France (a conflict which technically started in the second crusade) which essentially lasted the next 800 years- we needed money and wanted French land, so unite Europe it did not

The European crusades are more interesting than the middle eastern ones IMO. The crusades called in Iberia were essentially papal blessings on the existing conflict between the Moors and the Christian kingdoms of Galicia, Leon, Castilla and Aragon. It should be noted that the peasants (and therefor foot soldiers) of Galicia were still largely pagan at this time. By the time the first crusade was called at the end of the 11th century, the Iberian kingdoms had been at war with the Moors for 400 years and had already pushed them back south of Toledo. At two seperate points, there was a crusade in support of Aragon and against Aragon, one because the Aragonese made an alliance with an enemy of the pope and another because of the Aragonese protection of Cathars in Occitania.

Which brings us to the Albigensian crusade. This was a very popular crusade on account of it being very close to home and crusaders only needing to serve for 45 days to have their sins absolved. It also almost never happened; the Catholic Church was tolerant of the Cathars until it became apparent that the Cathar doctrine meant that they would not pay a tithe to the church, at which point they were declared heretics. This crusade was largely persecuted by Simon De Montfort, an ambitious, minor, English-Norman baron who was an excellent general and a fairly ruthless man. The crusading armies in southern France spent more time besieging cities for de Montfort's political ambition than for the persecution of the Cathars and he stepped on enough toes that eventually King Henry of England (poss. The 3rd?) actually convinced the pope to issue a crusade against de Montfort over a disputed tribute payment. The Albigensian crusade is also notable as it saw the introduction of the Spanish Inquisition, another great institution of the Catholic Church

The 'Northern Crusades' were in several parts. The first one was not against 'Vikings' but was actually persecuted by The Danes and the Saxons against Slavs and were notable for their being large numbers of pagans fighting on either side. This was followed by a brief crusade against a peasant revolt against taxes levied by the Bishop of Bremen and then the Livonian crusade in Prussia and the Baltic states which was agains fought by and against a mixture of pagans and Christians and was entirely about securing German trade routes as The German Holy Roman Empire was in full effect

There were two crusades against the Ottomans, though one of them never actually got that far. The first was succesful in that it pushed the Ottomans back across he Bosphorus, though the subsequent pursuit of them resulted in eventual defeat for the Christians. The second ended up being against the Hussites in Bohemia, who declared independence following being freed from the Turks only to be subjugated by a Christian crusader army. The Hussites were Christians

Overall, far more crusades were persecuted against European Christians than against Muslim invaders and they did not unite Europe but tore it apart. The good old Catholic Church. Apologies if any if the dates were slightly off, doing this on the hop

For what it's worth, I hope the scum that killed Lee Rigby rot in jail for the rest of their lives and their fellow inmates make every day a living nightmare, but if they were executed that would be giving them what they want. Let them rot I say

[Phileas Fogg]

Chipdawg very interesting post. Won't quote it due to length but thanks for sharing that knowledge, fascinating period of history.

[Davros]

I have changed my mind let em rot in jail for as long as they live.

[chipdawg]

Chipdawg very interesting post. Won't quote it due to length but thanks for sharing that knowledge, fascinating period of history.

I believe there are a couple of points in there that are disputed by historians and I may have mixed up some of the protagonists, but the overall point about the papal use of crusades is sound

[Red-Robbo]

I believe there are a couple of points in there that are disputed by historians and I may have mixed up some of the protagonists, but the overall point about the papal use of crusades is sound

Pretty much spot on. It is worth noting that the first crusade attempted to recapture Jerusalem, which had only been in Muslim hands for just over 100 years. During the siege, the Christian population had fled, and the garrison the crusading army massacred was the Muslim defenders. This was pretty much standard in siege warfare throughout this period - and indeed happened to a number of crusader garrisons.

You are right to call in the motives of much of the European nobility and clergy in the crusading period.

Gobbers initial point that crusades were not an out-of-the-blue attack on a peace-loving indigenous Muslim area (as is often parroted by Islamists and PC types) was also reasonable - before he started getting his Viking history and much more hopelessly muddled.

Early Medieval history is pretty unedifying whichever side of the religious divide you are on.

[chipdawg]

Pretty much spot on. It is worth noting that the first crusade attempted to recapture Jerusalem, which had only been in Muslim hands for just over 100 years. During the siege, the Christian population had fled, and the garrison the crusading army massacred was the Muslim defenders. This was pretty much standard in siege warfare throughout this period - and indeed happened to a number of crusader garrisons.

You are right to call in the motives of much of the European nobility and clergy in the crusading period.

Gobbers initial point that crusades were not an out-of-the-blue attack on a peace-loving indigenous Muslim area (as is often parroted by Islamists and PC types) was also reasonable - before he started getting his Viking history and much more hopelessly muddled.

Early Medieval history is pretty unedifying whichever side of the religious divide you are on.

I didn't think the 1st crusade made it as far as Jerusalem? Anyway, first or second crusade- it was actually Muslims and Jews defending the city and they were all massacred together. Both 'sides' did some pretty horrid things to each other, I was simply emphasising the point that Saladin wasn't the baby-eating monster some paint him as

I've never thought them to be an unprovoked attack on the Islamic world, but neither were they a moralistic defence of civilisation. Above all, they were a very interesting period of history

[Red-Robbo]

I didn't think the 1st crusade made it as far as Jerusalem? Anyway, first or second crusade- it was actually Muslims and Jews defending the city and they were all massacred together. Both 'sides' did some pretty horrid things to each other, I was simply emphasising the point that Saladin wasn't the baby-eating monster some paint him as

I've never thought them to be an unprovoked attack on the Islamic world, but neither were they a moralistic defence of civilisation. Above all, they were a very interesting period of history

Yes, sorry. Didn't make it clear in that post that I meant the first crusade - which stalled at Constantinople- came less than a century after the Muslim conquest of the near East and in the second crusade, Jerusalem was stormed. Jews would indeed have been massacred. It is a fact that Judaism had a lot easier a ride in Muslim states than ib Christian ones back in those days!

Slightly off topic - even more off topic! - is the interesting discovery made via recent dna analysis that 70% of modern-day Palestinians are believed to be descended from Jews.

[Mr Mosquito]

I can't decide whether your revisionist history of Europe is wilfully ignorant or whether you've been misinformed. Lets start with what a crusade actually is, rather than a romanticised version of it. A crusade was a call to arms by the papacy, where in return for military service all sins were absolved and your path to heaven was clear. Therefore, any man participating in the the crusade could go off to battle safe in the knowledge that if they were killed they would be guaranteed a place in heaven. In that respect, its incredibly similar in theological doctrine to the idea behind islamic martyrdom that has been discussed elsewhere.

Yours was a very long reply but let's look at the crusades from the aspect of the Knights Templar Military Order. A military order that once had a garrison in Bristol itself. They fought bravely and courageously to retake Jerusalem for Christendom. They were then - some hundreds of years later - betrayed by the Pope and the French King and their most senior brothers tortured and burned. It is said that a curse was put on the Pope and French King and his lineage by the Templar Grand master over this and they were both dead within the year! In Paris in the 1790s - over 400 years later - an onlooker exclaimed excitedly of further Templar vengeance when King Louis XVI was guillotined to the delight of the crowd. Deus lo vult - VIVE LES TEMPLIER !!!!!!!!