qt

Mr. Tea said:

Stone cold quim magnet with a name like that, guaranteed.

Until, er, you look at him.

Click to expand...

I always like to imagine him absolutely destroying cunts.

grizzleb said:

Reminded me of how much I wanted to die when I seen Davina McCall on it a few years ago.

Click to expand...

This was the worst.

Yeah this was a worthwhile watch, cheers dq.
Prob the last person in the world to say this - but it's amazing how far Boris J has managed to get on the ticket of being 'sort of a nice bloke'. When you listen to him on this, he's even worse than your average politico at not giving a straight answer to any question.
He constantly avoids the point by waffling, telling bad jokes and directing semi-humorous insults at the other panelists. I couldn't tell you if it's a deliberate strategy of evasion or just general stupidity/ignorance, but either way, the man's a total vacuum for ideas...

Edit: In fairness, even though it was obv motivated in part by a 'the others are just as bad' tactic, I did kind of admire how open he was about the issue of non-dom donations, basically saying upfront that all the parties receive them and will continue to do so. Also, I don't know much about Shirley Williams, but what she said about the specific case of Lord Ashcroft seemed to make a lot of sense.

four_five_one said:

The argument that perhaps the murder of a child and the murder of an (equally innocent) adult might be equally reprehensible. The murder of a child is always far, far worse apparently.

Click to expand...

Hmm. The thing is I bet ten-to-one you and Will Self don't actually have children. Not that this is a criticism as such - but I promise you'll find yourself in quite a different mind-set once you actually do. I used to spout just the same kind of things. That says something about the bias of BOTH parties (those with and without children) not something about the clarity of vision of those without.

William Burroughs used to have a classic put-down whereby he said that an artist/writer/musician was essentially a con-man - and that the greatest con was to pretend you were Death. With a capital "D". The thing about claiming you were Death was that you were susceptible to someone blowing the whistle on you - calling your bluff. Because no-one is Death....

If you'll forgive me, I'd like to call your bluff, because it strikes me that the card you and Will Self are playing is that of Death. When and if you have one (and I hope I'm not putting you off ) you'll see that actually children are life. The death, almost inconceivably worse the murder, of a child renders our humanity and existence as a transparent charade - not just because they rely on "grown-ups" to protect them but because YES we all die, but it's all about our right to a decent life while we're shuffling about and as a child you've not lived long enough.

It's like (or should be like) the Police and their attitude to people who kill Policemen. It's biased but at least it's honest about what is at stake for that organism (the Police Force).

I can see what you're saying here, Matt, but when children kill children, the point is somewhat complicated, no?

Also, Will Self does have children, doesn't he?

He has four children, I think. he certainly has some, anyway.

Yes, the comparison that Self made was not between the murderers of children and the murdereers of adults, but between children who murder and adults who murder. That Bulger's murderers were uniquley evil because they--the murderers--were children whereas this stuff (term of life sentences e.g.) is acceptable (i.e. ignored) on a day-to-day basis if the murderer is an adult--this is the inconsistency. It is a good point and was well made. I admit that I was surprised to see actual insight on QT, but there you go.

Er, so what I mean is (with respect) you seem to be massively missing Self's point here Woebot. Not that I disagree with the sentiment expressed, but it is something of a non sequitur. I can't parse four_five_one's post but it seems like s/he is making the same mistake.

vimothy said:

Yes, the comparison that Self made was not between the murderers of children and the murdereers of adults, but between children who murder and adults who murder. That Bulger's murderers were uniquley evil because they--the murderers--were children whereas this stuff (term of life sentences e.g.) is acceptable (i.e. ignored) on a day-to-day basis if the murderer is an adult--this is the inconsistency. It is a good point and was well made. I admit that I was surprised to see actual insight on QT, but there you go.

Click to expand...

Exactly. The unpopular point that they may have not known what they were doing, because they were kids.

vimothy said:

Er, so what I mean is (with respect) you seem to be massively missing Self's point here Woebot. Not that I disagree with the sentiment expressed, but it is something of a non sequitur. I can't parse four_five_one's post but it seems like s/he is making the same mistake.

Click to expand...

Also in agreement with this. It's not clear to me if everyone has actually seen the QT being discussed, because some of the stuff here isn't what happened?

Yesterday's QT was a bit depressing too, with glimpses of hope.

Main conclusion (reaffirmed): McKenzie is a hateful piece of shit.

This case more in relation to Bulger puts our frenzied bloodlust to shame:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/803151.stm

For me the most basic and overlooked fact in amongst all the self-serving media hyperventilation is not even that the obvious one that children have diminished responsibility, but that a child who murders is no more the demonic spawn of satan than an adult who murders. Even if you think that "life should mean life", this is not relevant to the Bulger case specifically. It's a generic point.

vimothy said:

Yes, the comparison that Self made was not between the murderers of children and the murdereers of adults, but between children who murder and adults who murder. That Bulger's murderers were uniquley evil because they--the murderers--were children whereas this stuff (term of life sentences e.g.) is acceptable (i.e. ignored) on a day-to-day basis if the murderer is an adult--this is the inconsistency. It is a good point and was well made. I admit that I was surprised to see actual insight on QT, but there you go.

Click to expand...

Ah, when I saw it the first time and heard him say 'child killers' and 'adult killers' I assumed he meant people who killed children vs people who killed adults. Maybe he does mean that, but watching that part again, it seems you're right.

To rewrite my first post, at the time QT was shown, I was in the pub. When I got home and watched it, I was surprised to learn that Will Self had made exactly the same argument as I had (so I thought). But anyway, having made the point about children not having the same moral responsibility as adults, I then went on to say that the murder of a child and the murder of an equally innocent adult is morally equivalent. And I stand by that.

If you were to say "Is it just as evil to kill an innocent adult as it is to kill an innocent child?" It'd seem strange if you said the two murders weren't equally evil. Like if someone broke in at night and murdered my poor old Grandmother, this to me seems _just as evil_ as the murder of a child.

The thing that gets me about the baying-mob mentality that always surrounds these cases of child offenders is that people seem unable to appreciate that the perpetrators most probably have had a pretty appalling upbringing themselves for them to have gone so badly wrong at such a young age. Case in point: the brothers who tortured those two younger boys in the recent high-profile case. Their mother couldn't cope with them at all and had repeatedly pleaded with social services to intervene; they were well known as trouble-makers in the neighbourhood, so they must have been known to local authorities...but of course nothing was done. Then something happened, and everyone's like "Why was nothing done?".

Anyone know any background on the Bulger kids? I can't quite believe two kids who weren't already quite fucked up would have done something like this after seeing one violent horror film, though I could be wrong. Of course, exposure to video violence at a young age could be one of the things that sends someone down that path in the first place.

Naturally this argument applies to adults, too. Baby P's mother was horribly abused as a kid, and the mother of the little girl who starved to death recently had had horrible things done to her, or witnessed horrific violence at any rate.

Where's the evidence that children are born not-evil?

If one has no choice but to be evil, then one isn't truly evil. Right? Ethics 101.

[there will now ensue a debate about Free Will...]

The only thing stopping babies from harming others is that they're weak - an omnipotent baby would quite happily vaporise anybody getting between it and its momma's mammaries.