Blog powered by Typepad

« Mumblings from a Mall | Main | And whilst I'm on the subject ... »

Tuesday, 28 November 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Hey, you know what? Fuck you, Duff. Fuck you six hundred and fifty thousand times.

Hmmm! Seem to have touched an 'Oirish' nerve there! Of course, there was a time when Irish letters were held in high regard by those able to judge literary matters. If 'Snotty' is a typical product of modern Irish education then one can only weep and join with Hamlet Snr. in moaning, "[W]hat a falling off was there". Almost down to Brit levels!

David we've been through all this several times, and every single time you

(a) totally and pathetically fail to prove that the death penalty would improve matters at all;

(b) repeat the feeble, false, and cowardly lie that liberals are indifferent to the murder of the innocent.

So in the circumstances I think Snotty's reply is the most appropriate one. Same old, same old, indeed.

One more thing: "the 'body count'... is now beginning to grow exponentially"

Do you have any evidence at all for this?

Wait, scrap that. Do you even know what this means? If you did you might realise what a ludicrous assertion it is to make. So same old, same old then.

Tut, tut, Larry, it never does to underestimate one's opponents unless, of course, they are the likes of 'Snotty McShot' when it is is difficult to *succeed* in underestimating him! As I typed the word "exponentially" I realised that it had mathematical connotations so I looked it up: "(Of an increase) becoming more and more rapid". I refer you to:

and suggest you scroll down to the first graph and if that increase in the homicide rate is not exponential since the ending of the death penalty in the late '50s I can only ask you, Dr. Teabag, what word you would choose to describe it?

Whilst I'm at it, I will ask *you*, a dedicated liberal, I assume, how many articles you have read recently in the liberal press decrying (or even weeping for!) the increase in murder? What ideas has Polly Toynbee come up with to stop the slaughter? What has the New Statesman to say as it peers over the piles of the innocent dead? Dare one ask *you*, Larry, what ideas *you* may be struggling to express in response to this constant and pitiless outrage? One can only assume that it is 'a struggle' because I cannot recall a single mention of it on your own deeply serious and widely-ranging blog! Speak up, man - or is it that you dare not because you have no ideas? Not a single, solitary clue as to how to stop this *exponential* rise in the murder rate. But, my goodness me, how quick you are to attack some-one who does have a plan.

I like you, Larry, but you are, I'm afraid to say, a humbug!

David I've been trying to underestimate you for ages, but I've never managed it.

Firstly, wherever you got that definition from, it's wrong.

Secondly, I looked at your graph and, even using your incorrect definition of 'exponential', the average gradient looks pretty level to me since 1960. So no it isn't.

"I cannot recall a single mention of it on your own deeply serious and widely-ranging blog!"

Does there exist an argument too cheap or crap for you to use?

I notice that you have never mentioned the Indonesian tsunami or the Rwandan genocide on your deeply serious and widely-ranging blog. I therefore conclude that you don't care about them.

Also you can shove this up your floppy old hole:

"But, my goodness me, how quick you are to attack some-one who does have a plan."

If you wrote a reasonable argument about the merits of the death penalty then I'd be happy to discuss it with you in a reasonable way. But you didn't. You wrote YET ANOTHER tirade about how anyone who thinks differently to you on this subject simply doesn't care. Your piece takes as its starting point the belief that reintroducing the death penalty would put everything back on track. You don't make the case for that at all - worse, you don't even *try* to make the case. You simply hector and insult your opponents, and then jump on your moral high-horse and complain when they do the same back to you.

I like you David, but you really are a silly old fart.

Funnily enough I'm very fond of both of you and I think that the death penalty lets them off too lightly.

I am the perfect liberal. Do I get a prize?

Thought you might like a read at this site, David. From the days when stealing a loaf of bread was punishable by transportation.

And that's just at one court.

"Firstly, wherever you got that definition [of 'exponential'] from, it's wrong."

So, tell the OED who I always assumed understood the meaning of words, but before you do, tell me the word *you* would choose to describe an increase from around 275 homicides in 1960 to around 875 in 2000 (excluding Shipman's Stakhanovite efforts!), whilst *remembering* that for 60 years, from 1900 to 1960, the figure remained fairly constant around the 300 mark.

"I notice that you have never mentioned the Indonesian tsunami or the Rwandan genocide on your deeply serious and widely-ranging blog. I therefore conclude that you don't care about them."

As it happens, I don't very much, but neither do I launch hot-headed attacks on people who do!

Anyway, Larry, I will set aside *my* idea for the moment and I eagerly await *your* solution, assuming, of course, that you do actually think there is a problem ... and you never did get around to demonstrating that the slaughter of the innocents was high on the priorities of the liberal 'cognoscenti'.

"[Y]ou really are a silly old fart"
And you really are sounding like Son of Duff!

'Ratty', do try and stick to the point, there's a good fellow.

Clairwil, you have indeed won a prize and I shall spend the rest of the day salivating quietly as I ponder exactly what form it will take!

Some years in time back, I was in conversation with a very senior policeman, and while our chat wandered around the barn more than once, we only touched on one theme, namely 'Capital Punishment' which literally drove him to speak sharply of the lawmakers of Britain.

He told me that, as a young(ish) Sergeant in a semi-rural posting, he was faced one evening with an apprehended burglar, caught bang-to-rights as he climbed out of a window. Unfortunately, he carried a sawn-off shotgun, and he brought it up to the ready; and called out that he would shoot if stopped!

My friend told me that, although quietly shaking in his boots, he stood firm and said, "The step you're about to take right now is quite short, but the steps that count are the fourteen long ones to the gallows trap!"

The shotgun was surrendered without a murmur, and the fact that the gun was brandished was never mentioned again!

Before I tell you my idea to stop this small-scale slaughter, I eagerly await *your* idea to stop the far bigger slaughter of the innocent on the British roads. Since hundreds of thousands of people are injured and thousands killed on our roads every year, this must be counted a far more serious problem... assuming, of course, that you do actually think that it is a problem. Perhaps you could demonstrate for me that this slaughter of the innocents is high on the priorities of the conservative 'cognoscenti'?

Because, you know, I've got this sneaking suspicion that you only actually care about people being killed when it gives you an excuse to be rude about liberals, to play your "clear-headed steely-eyes" game, but most importantly to propose killing more people as a solution - after all, self-righteous blood-letting is terrifically exciting.

But back to the roads. I suggest trebling road and petrol tax, reducing the speed limit by three quarters, and making any motoring offence punishable by immediate lifetime ban.

If you disagree with any of these suggestions then this will be even more evidence that you just don't care about the ever growing mountain of corpses - not that more evidence is really needed, given that I cannot recall a single mention of this ongoing bloody carnage on your own deeply serious and widely-ranging blog!

"increase from around 275 homicides in 1960 to around 875 in 2000"

Population in 1960 was?

Population in 2000 was?

Furthermore a few deaths in 1960 that were treated as accidental deaths/deaths from natural causes may now be classed as murder as science now has greater capacity to determine death from poison. On the other hand it also keeps more people alive from wounds they would have died of in 1960.

Perhaps we've also becomme better at finding missing people who have been murdered, wheras in 1960 an intelligent criminal could more easily hide a body.

Annoying things statistics really.

But if we assume that the murder rate has indeed risen, then we should also be aware that correlation does not necessarily equal causation. The following are other changes that correlate with the murder rate:

home computer use
inequality of wealth
Car ownership
people with degrees
Televison ownership
The prison population
The ammount of women in work
The divorce rate

etc etc

(and yes, I've heard people attribute rising crime to all of the above)

Sorry David, I didn't realise typepad would cut off my link. Copy this then look at "Killing" if you'd like to see the point I'm making.

For anyone who can't be arsed, this is the proceedings of the Old Bailey between 1674 and 1834, years when liberals surely ruled the judiciary.

Ou sont les neds d'antan?

Any bovver boys, punks, mods, rockers, casuals, skinheads, razor gangs, football hooligans or, well, Jacobites you'd like to complain about, be my guest.

Larry is well on his way to a career in politics! His impression of a political weasel from Westminster wriggling and slithering off the uncomfortable subject upon which he is being questioned is masterful. He should go on the 'Today' programme. In one trivial comment, he moves us from murder to road traffic accidents and then squeals with outrage when I accuse liberals of caring nothing for the likes of Tom ap Rhys Pryce and his shattered family. Anyway, I apologise for failing to elicit any sort of solution or suggestion from Larry on the subject at hand but I did try, my God, how I tried!

'PS' takes a prat fall on one point but raises another of such interest that I have written a seperate post above on the subject.

But, back to his embarrasing slip on the proverbial banana skin, he raises the subject of the population increase. I haven't reseached this in detail but one heading on Google said that the population had increased 8% since 1971. Let us assume then, for the sake of argument that the increase since 1960 was 10%. The increase in homicides from, say, 275 to 875 was - wait for it - 218%!

Of course, Mark Steyn would remind us that part of the increase in the population is due to immigration, and that the birth rate for indigenous Britains has fallen whilst that for immigrants is higher; so, unquestionably part of the murder rate increase emanates from there but, I suspect, only a small part and is, anyway, a sympton of the 'crime and non-punishment' policy that afflicts *every* subject in the land irrespective of origins.

You can care about suffering without endorsing the death penalty. I wonder if you can understand that? You conflate grief with revenge, perhaps.

The teenage murderers were jailed for the crime of murder. So justice was done. I do not see any liberals doing any thing other than express sadness at the death of a young man.

From the Telegraph:
' Mr ap Rhys Pryce and his fiancee were planning to marry in September this year and start a family. Yesterday his family announced they were launching a charity in his memory to raise money for children from poor backgrounds'.

Note: not starting a campaign for the reintroduction of the death penalty. I think your seizing upon the body of a murdered man to peddle your personal agenda and to insult others is disgraceful, and an insult to the memory of Tom, and to his family. When I campaigned with other survivors for a public inquiry into 7.7 you insultingly said I was making a political platform on the backs of the dead.

And what exactly do you think you are doing here, Mr Duff?

By the way, I see you just attempted to post a comment on my blog. As it contributed nothing at all to the debate but was merely an insult aimed at me I didn't bother: I have a no-trolling policy. You are, however,. welcome to actually contribute to the debate, if you feel able to.

The irony may not be lost on you, Mr Duff....

'THE parents of the murdered lawyer Tom ap Rhys Pryce said yesterday that they pitied and forgave his killers.

John and Estella ap Rhys Pryce, who are devout Christians, said that they believed their son’s murderers were “not intrinsically evil”.

The couple have set up a trust as a memorial to their son, a high-flying lawyer with the City firm Linklaters. It is hoped that the charity, which has already received £350,000, will raise more than £1 million to help to educate impoverished children.'

Are you now going to slag off Tom's parents? If not, why not?

Rachel writes: "When I campaigned with other survivors for a public inquiry into 7.7 you insultingly said I was making a political platform on the backs of the dead."

Personally, I don't see anything insulting about it. It would be like 'insulting' Wilberforce for his campaign because it was mounted on the backs of slaves! But here are a couple of things that I *did* actually write and which appear to have escaped Rachel's memory:

"I say again what I suggested on another site, that Rachel is free to organise politically a campaign to change the policy in respect to terrorism, that is part of the cut and thrust of our system. However, what I *suspect* is that she is agitating for an enquiry in order to press her own particular views on how the so-called 'war on terror' should be conducted."

"Apparently I 'insulted' her by, amongst other things, suggesting that she was mounting a political platform on the backs of the dead and wounded. It was certainly a robust accusation but, I like to think, not quite up to, or down to, her own standards when she implied that I was a Fascist!"

Interestingly, she banned me but I did not ban her!

Incidentally, the other "insult" she refers to above was my suggestion, in a comment on her views on modernising Britain's nuclear weapons, that she confine her remarks to titchy bombs about which she had some experience but leave grand strategy to people who had some knowledge of it.

Rachel insults very easily, I think!

Popping onto my blog and commenting' you know nothing' is hardly constructive debate is it? It's just throwing an insult around.
I wonder if you can see that? I wasn't upset. I just pointed out that it was not a contribution to a debate, anymore than farting in the House of Commons is a contribution to debate.

Back to your point, as you haven't answered my point, and I have made it twice times now...

Are you now going to slag off Tom's family - who have forgiven their son's killers, have set up a fund in memory of Tom for poor children after he was robbed and killled by poor teenagers, and who are definitely NOT calling for the death penalty? If not, why not?

If not, why not. Mr Duff?

Perhaps you would understand better if I quote your own advice in your own words, Mr Duff...

When I queried why we were spending money on nuclear weapons you commented:

'My well-meant advice would be to suggest that you stick to titchy bombs on trains, with which you have some very unfortunate experience, and leave grand strategy to those who know something of an exceedingly complex subject.'


'My well-meant advice would be to suggest that you stick to titchy subjects with which you have some experience, and leave the subject of whether Tom's death should be a reason to change sentencing policy to those who have relevant experience or who know something of an exceedingly complex subject. His family, for example.'

Slag off! I don't really go in for that over here, Rachel, well, only in a very refined way, of course.

But if you wish me to say that Mr. and Mrs. Rhys Price's Christian values in this matter are totally misguided and, in so far as they might prolong the prohibition of capital punishment, cruel - then I have just done so.

I will add this which is pertinent to you, too, Rachel. The fact that a wicked and brutal act engulfed the Rhy Jones family, just as such an event smashed into your existence, makes neither them or you an expert in the consequent debate. You might be able to contribute a detail from personal knowledge but other than that, nothing else that gives your views greater weight than anyone else's.

For example, your opinions on grand strategy, based as they are on nil knowledge, will be feather-light in their impact. You are entitled to an opinion and, of course, to express it. I just hope no-one bans you!

Our last two comments crossed 'in the post'. However, I think mine answers yours anyway. Funny how what was, according to you, "not a contribution to a debate" appears to have started, er, a debate!

... and your rationale for 'contributing to the debate' is... what, pray?

Why should your views be given more gravitas than the parents of the murdered man's views - whose son's death you revoltingly sought to use as material to push your own personal views on capital punishment?

Has anyone murdered your child, or shall we now dismiss your eccentric views as being as featherweight as you call mine when I write on my personal blog about my personal feelings about spending my taxes on nuclear bombs? Perhaps you have expertise in defence spending or the ability to forsee history, that justifies you telling me my views on my blog are featherweight compared to yours?

Or do you accept that we all have our own views, and coming over to tell people on their blogs that their views are not worth any account is hypocritical and boorish and arrogant?

If your views are so much more well informed and important than anyone elses, including mine, Tom's parents or liberals in general, then I do look forward to you proving this.

Besides which you utterly contradict yourself...

'stick to bombs on trains, in which you have some experience' you say, then..

'The fact that a wicked and brutal act engulfed the Rhy Jones family, just as such an event smashed into your existence, makes neither them or you an expert in the consequent debate.'

You neither, mister.

From what I can see on this blog, you merely pontificate away excitedly with a load of reactionary nonsense, being rude and dismissive to people, hoping for a reaction. For example - 'liberals' ( who? when? how many?) according to you 'dismissed nonchalantly' a brutal murder, because they did not campaign for the reintroduction of the death penalty when Tom was killed.

A ludicrous assertion.

Then when it is pointed out that the family of the murdered man forgave the killers and did not back the death penalty either you call them 'totally misguided' and 'cruel'.

This is not debating. It is a few people pointing out the utter fallcies and inconsistencies in your bizarre positions, and you refusing to budge whilst continuing to sneer. I don't think I'll bother, ta.

I grew out of that after the 6th form debating club was closed because the children couldn't play nicely.

'Rachel, calm down, dear, it's only a blog!'

You banged out the following: "Why should your views be given more gravitas than the parents of the murdered man's" but what I said was "You might be able to contribute a detail from personal knowledge but other than that, nothing else that gives your views greater weight than anyone else's".

Try and read that slowly, dear, and you'll see the point.

As to grand strategy you wrote this: "Who do we think we are ''deterring''? What do we think we are deterring them from? Why do we think they will take a blind bit of notice of a Northern European island which has spent billions on some flash new submarines".
All those are perfectly reasonable *questions* from anyone looking for enlightenment on the complexities of geo-politics and grand strategy but, of course, in your case they were purely rhetorical because you have already reached a conclusion. Thus, in the absence of any signs of expertise, one is entitled to suggest that, on this subject, you are a 'know nothing'. In that respect, of course, you join a very large and not very exclusive club to be found in any Saloon Bar or behind the wheel of any London taxi!

Have the last word, its your blog. You funny little man. I know how important it is to you.

The comments to this entry are closed.