« Since When? | Lancaster Bomber. »
@ 2009-08-23 – 06:50:33
Ok, contentious, so I'll make it short.
Should we, shouldn't we?
Did he, didn't he?
I'm reminded of a shakespearean quote in which it is said that the quality of mercy describes the nation.
I am both pleased and proud to belong to a nation so described.
Dennypoos............would like it known that he is not a lily-livered, guardian-reading, sandal-wearing, bearded, muesli-eating, wind chime-tinkling, kind of guy.....but knows what's right
brokendownangel
Pro 
gardengirl
I agree that if they did this because his conviction was dodgy they should have said so.
dennypoos
Dear BDA and GG. I think you're muddying the water here. The thrust of my argument was that we as a nation show mercy in our dealings with those people to whom many nations would not.
I don't think that he was released just because of a dodgy verdict. If that were the only criteria why was Biggs released recently.
On a purly personal note, anything that gets the American bible belt up in arms works for me.
brokendownangel
Pro ahh but it wasn't really mercy was it? And if someone was guilty of that sort of atrocity then that mercy would have been very very wrong surely - I do agree about the americans though x
Perhaps it would be better decribed as compassion then. I can tell from your tone that I'll never convince you otherwise but I feel that the eye for an eye argument has run its course, excepting of course for 'WASP' Americans and Daily Mail readers.
Fin.
Related posts
The content of this website belongs to a private person, blog.co.uk is not responsible for the content of this website.
We all know that he was let out because the conviction was dodgy, or they wouldn't have let him out at all - who lets a person go home for any reason when that person has killed so many? I would have more respect for a nation that stood up and admitted it's horrific mistake x