We shall fight them on the beaches....

[Troll]

No, but I look at the overall achievements of Churchill, and my reply was not related to that episode, but the burning of police murderers. Too good for them I say !!!

WHS

[Moscow Mule]

No, but I look at the overall achievements of Churchill, and my reply was not related to that episode, but the burning of police murderers. Too good for them I say !!!

Hear Hear!

WHS

Why are police murderers considered more evil than plain old murderers?

[Cyberman]

Why are police murderers considered more evil than plain old murderers?

They are not, but police murderers in this situation were obviously guilty and this outcome saved much time and expense. All premeditated murder deserves the death penalty IMO, unless there are extreme mitigating circumstances.

Remember, yet another 'achievement' of Tony Blair was to reduce the average term served for murder from 12 to six years!!!

[ASB]

They are not, but police murderers in this situation were obviously guilty and this outcome saved much time and expense.

Maybe they were guilty; since you regard process as irrelevant I can only assume you think Jack Straw was a great Home Secretary. After all he got to the point of wanting to lock people up just in case the might do something.

It is not for the upholders of the law to act as judge jury and (arguably in this case) excutioner. That is a different process.

[Troll]

I must say she's tidied herself up a little... as long as she doesn't smile!
Mutton dressed as lamb

Although she testified as the barrister Cherie Booth rather than as Mrs. Blair, the most controversial prime minister’s wife in memory (not to mention the only one ever voted in a poll of the British people as the individual they would most like to see deported), it is clearly challenging for the Brits to remember which Cherie they’re dealing with at any given moment.

[Cyberman]

Maybe they were guilty; since you regard process as irrelevant I can only assume you think Jack Straw was a great Home Secretary. After all he got to the point of wanting to lock people up just in case the might do something.

It is not for the upholders of the law to act as judge jury and (arguably in this case) excutioner. That is a different process.

Those guys had committed murder and no court case was necessary unless they avoided the fire. To then equate what I am saying with Jack Straw is perverse and illogical.

[Cyberman]

I must say she's tidied herself up a little... as long as she doesn't smile!
Mutton dressed as lamb

Her lips look smaller from the side !!

[expat]

... no court case was necessary.

Oh well, that makes justice a lot more efficient.

[ASB]

Those guys had committed murder and no court case was necessary unless they avoided the fire. To then equate what I am saying with Jack Straw is perverse and illogical.

The constabulary (and effectively the home secretary at the time using his executive direction powers) is not (and was not then) a prosecuting authority. That is a function of the judiciary. It is down to the judge or jury to ascertain guilt (which looks certain in this case). It is down to the judge to set penalty (which would have been hanging in this case).

That was wrong then and is still wrong now. The fact they were obviously guilty doesn't make it ok. That is effectively also what Jack Straw as home secretary wanted to do - simply lock anybody up on the say so of the home secretary, no evidence, no review - even more sweeping powers than internment. It all stems from ignoring the judicial process.

Granted I don't have any real sympathy for the victims, but having the home secretary causing them to be burned alive was wrong.

[Cyberman]

Granted I don't have any real sympathy for the victims, but having the home secretary causing them to be burned alive was wrong.

Knowing that these guys had already committed murder, would you want to be responsible for a decision that led to members of the fire service then also being shot.

Perhaps Churchill actually made this decision on the basis of their safety, but our left-wing fiends prefer the more juicy interpretation, as ever.