A recent rash of metric distance signs has been reported from Newton Heritage Trail, Newton-le-Willows, St. Helens. The matter is being taken up with the relevant authorities in the first instance

Polly

Any progress?

An ARM operative has inspected the signs which occur along the recently-opened Newton Heritage Trail, mostly an industrial heritage trail but with some quite nice small woods and a dammed lake which make it quite attractive. There are several noticeboards which announce the length of the walk as '10 kilometres' and the signs round the walk, where distances are given, are all in metric. On the noticeboards are displays proclaiming the involvement of the E.U. Regional Development Fund in promoting the trail.

ARM now has the information with which to approach the local authority but we have not sent a formal letter yet.

Will post here again to advise on any results. We are not optimistic given that, once again, expensive cast-iron signs seem to have been used to promote metric measurements just as at Portsmouth, Hastings, Lambeth and Ely.

Polly Peck

I love that: "the E.U. Regional Development Fund"

We give 'em 20million quid to build us a 10million quid road!

Money well spent eh?

Our Chairman has written today to the Council giving them 21 days to comply with the law and respect the wishes of 86% of the people. The person dealing with the metric signs is Mr Rick Rogers of the Parks and Landscape Department, e-mail: rick_rogers@sthelens.gov.uk, Tel - 01744 456191

P Peck

Please tell us what other laws you will put your energies into enforcing?

Er...the Weights and Measures Act 1985, which allows British traders to sell in pounds and ounces...

Polly Peck

Where does the 86% come from?

Living in London I can tell you most shops have even abandoned dual measure, only market traders trying to convince the public they are belligerently stupid by hiding prices in old measure still try that one! Note still there are no moves to restore gallons at the petrol pumps.. Can't think why?

Actually 85%,an ICM poll at the end of April this year gave that % in favour of retaining imperial measurements.Well done to the British people.

QUOTE: "...hiding prices in old measure".

Given that most people in the UK perceive weight and value in lb/oz, the above statement does not make a lot of sense.

The reason why petrol retailers do not want a switch back to the gallon is because it is more price-transparent for most people than the litre. In other words, a 10p rise per gallon appears less when displayed as 2p per litre.

if only a price per lb is available continually (like some of the markets stall holders) then people who LIKE to shop for bargains cannot guage price rises or compare properly. Most shops in London are now metric only. No-one came in with a jackboot and forced them (you are ridiculously promoting this MYTH). The law states both price per lb and per kg CAN be shown til 2009, but per lb only is NOT permissible anymore than puting prices per gallon ONLY- get a grip. This is not rocket science.
About the gallon price matter- you are more deluded than I dreamt! I will start a campaign to promote a return to gallons and publicize that BWMA back me.. and for a return to ( at a cost of many millions of £s and confusion to our younger generations) terms like perches, bushels, pecks etc etc etc, which they MUST all learn by ORDER of the supreme command of the oh-so-superiorly-British BWMA office. See how much the public are in favour of your backward thinking 'measures' then.

QUOTE: "If only a price per lb is available continually...then people who LIKE to shop for bargains cannot gauge price rises or compare properly".

ANS: Price comparison is an important area; however, it is not a metric vs imperial issue. Price comparison can be achieved by imperial-only OR metric-only OR compulsory dual. The current shambles is entirely due to government negligence by failing to either (a) pass necessary legislation (BWMA's view) or (b) enforcing compliance with the law (metrical people's view).

QUOTE: "Most shops in London are now metric only. No-one came in with a jackboot and forced them (you are ridiculously promoting this MYTH)".

ANS: Most loose-food/good traders use metric machines and pricing only because of the 1994 regulations and the threat of criminal penalties. No threat of fines equals no metric conversion.

QUOTE: "The law states both price per lb and per kg CAN be shown until 2009".

ANS: This is a red-herring. The issue is not whether a trader can give the consumer information additional to that required by law but whether they can SELL in lb/oz. Under the 1994 regulations, they cannot do so. They can merely give additional information which is not a matter of law in the first place so we don't see how this 2009 deadline is enforceable.

With regards to your remarks on the gallon, bushel and so forth, I haven't the faintest notion of what you are talking about.

Quote: "This is a red-herring. The issue is not whether a trader can give the consumer information additional to that required by law but whether they can SELL in lb/oz. Under the 1994 regulations, they cannot do so. They can merely give additional information which is not a matter of law in the first place so we don't see how this 2009 deadline is enforceable."

A typical BWMA ploy.

The display of pricing is just as much subject to law as the weighing and selling of the product. It is enforceable in the same way as weighing and selling in approved units.

If the additional information was not subject to law then why the derogation? Try telling that to the Conservative opposition who negotiated them.

{If the additional information was not subject to law then why the derogation? Try telling that to the Conservative opposition who negotiated them.}

Additional information is NEVER subject to law. If you need permission from some beaurocrat to display additional information after meeting the basic requirements, you know your living in a Communist police state.

QUOTE: "The display of pricing is just as much subject to law as the weighing and selling of the product. It is enforceable in the same way as weighing and selling in approved units".

ANS: Which confirms what I said. Under the (disputed) 1994 regulations, the law recognises weights and measures only in metric. This relates to pricing, selling, contracts and everything. The 1994 regulations do not recognise any other system.

However, under British law, people are also entitled to free speech. So long as information conveyed between two parties is not misleading, people are free to exchange views, comments, information, etc.

Thus, a trader and a customer can discuss the colour and shape of the food, or its flavour and taste, even though this information is not required as conditions of sale as defined in the contract. It may well be the case that the trader and consumer want to convert the legally recognised weight into some or other private system, known only to themselves, and for their own private use. Additional information, conveyed at the private discretion of the trader for the benefit of a consumer who asked for it, is not a matter for the law.

Information not required by law cannot be subject to law, save to prevent fraud. If a trader wants to convey the weight or unit price of food in some or other system, so long as the legal unit is displayed, the law cannot be broken.

QUOTE: "If the additional information was not subject to law, then why the derogation?"

To use your only term, it is a "ploy". In the UK, it is not necessary for Parliament to pass a law in order for people to exchange private information on weights and measures, any more than it is necessary to pass a law to allow greengrocers to say "bananas are yellow".

What the EC directive does is to give additional information a fancy name: "supplementary indications". Alongside making metric compulsory, the directive purports to give a "concession" by saying that people can still exchange other information - wow!

Having given us this "permission", the EC then says, in 2009, it can deny people their right to exchange information - simply by deleting removing the paragraph relating to supplementary indications!

BWMA, welcome to the world of trade.

Ralf

The 2009 deadline is less a matter of trade and more a restrictive practice. Metric-compulsory labelling does not hinder international trade since UK/UK units can be placed alongside. However, Metric-ONLY labelling (which we argue is illegal) means European firms wishing to export outside the EU have to set up two production lines.

"Living in London I can tell you most shops have even abandoned dual measure"

Nope!

PLUS - Asda show price per gallon at the petrol station.

Real world

Let me take you shopping with me Steve.. ( need a nice little helper to carry my groceries)... I can assure you there are very few places you will find dual measures in London and ALL corner shops are metric only, epsecially ALL the health food stores where I shop mostly. Even Harrods and Harvey Nichols- Metric ONLY. They seem to have made a CHOICE (I know you folk are having trouble with that word) not to put dual labelling and continue to confuse shoppers. Seems they didn't even want to wait til 2009, couldn't get rid of silly old things quick enough (Hmmmmm.. a few of those around here- Hi Polly!)
The main price at ASDA for petrol is in litres as everywhere else and they only do it as Tesco is using same 'gimmick'- Where is your campaign to 'Save the Gallons' by the way? Truth- they wouldn't want one and you'd be ridiculed!

I'd cost too much to be your supermarket caddy - believe me!

MPG


P.S. London is bigger than you think
P.P.S. There *IS* a world outside london.

>P.P.S. There *IS* a world outside london

Yeah, but that world only consists of greengrocers and fishmongers...

Ralf

Ralf: Shows what you know. There are NO fishmongers in Britain any more - not since the Spanish stole all our fish! And not too many greengrocers left either. The entire country now subsists by selling each other endless metric conversion charts and rules for measuring the curvature of cucumbers in supermarkets.

Seriously Ralf, when you visit Britain do you wander outside London at all? I seriously recommend you do! In fact go to Blackpool if you want a shock!

First of all, that was just a stupid joke...

I've been to Wales for vacation, but apart from that, my job only takes me to London (well, I consider Woking as part of London). At some point I was supposed to go to Manchester, but that never happened in the end.
What a shame, I love the different accents you have in the UK (actually, the more north the cooler it gets). The US doesn't exactly entice you with the variety of accents...

Personally I think the loss of accents (due to the broad media) is something much more worth fighting for...

Cheers,
Ralf

The Appeal Court this week has found in favour of Asda and one of its store managers who had been charged with selling bananas which did not satisfy E.U. regulations on dimensions.The Appeal Court agreed it was a daft law . The Government is appealing to the House of Lords!!!!

^What, exactly, are the regulations the EU placed on banana dimensions?

A banana is only a banana if...

Really, is there anything those EU guys haven't regulated yet?

To Ralf:

"I've been to Wales for vacation"

Really? Where? The valleys, the cities or north? I'm from the valleys. It's nice to here holiday makers heading for Wales.

"well, I consider Woking as part of London"

Woking? London? Surely not! Woking is Surrey and well outside the magic ringroad. Funnyily enough I agreed with a friend the other day that a company was telling fibs when they advertised as being near London when they were based in Guildford.

"At some point I was supposed to go to Manchester, but that never happened in the end."

A little hint - lock your car! (sorry mancunians!)

"I love the different accents you have in the UK"

Apparently the UK has the most diverse accents in the World! I can get on a train where I live and 40 mins later I'll be listening to the Brummy accent (not one of the best, I grant you!)

>Really? Where? The valleys, the cities or north? I'm
>from the valleys. It's nice to here holiday makers
>heading for Wales.

Actually, we made a roundtrip. We started in Cardiff, going up the coast (stayed in Borth) and met somone we knew in Bangor.
We went into this local pub in Bangor where we had to realize that welsh people on average are considerably smaller in height than me and my girlfriend was (I'm about 1.85m) ;)
We also visited the slate mines (can't remember the city), very cool.

>Apparently the UK has the most diverse accents in the
>World!

Ever been to Germany ? Same there, sometimes they have to put subtitles on TV when they interview some farmer in South Germany :)

Cheers,
Ralf

First of all sorry for the atrocious spelling in my last post!

Now onto points:
"welsh people on average are considerably smaller in height than me and my girlfriend was "
I think you might have either met a lot of old people or coincidently bumped into Wales's smaller community! The avg Welsh man is 5'9" tall - same as the rest of the UK - I'm 5'11" (although one of those "measures you weight/height" things told me I was 5'10"! Cheek!).

Nice to see that you went to Cardiff - one of the best nights out you could ask for in UK/Ireland (according to a survey!) Found a fantastic curry house last week called "East Street".

"Ever been to Germany ? Same there"
Only been across the border (near strasbourg) and Koln/Cologne. Is the accent thing in Germany to do with that "Bavarian" thing I hear about?

P.S. Cornwall, Wales, Isle of Man and Scotland have different languages (as opposed to dialects or accents) although Welsh and Manx are the only officially "recognised" ones.

Hmm, I just checked on the web, the average male German is 1.81m (5'11"), maybe that's why...
Apart from that, it is commonly known (of course usually without any statistical background) that UK people are on average smaller than continental people.

>Is the accent thing in Germany to do
>with that "Bavarian" thing I hear about?

Well, the Bavarians (south Germany) are probably the most visible (or audible) ones in their accents. Part of it stems from that the definition of "high German" (the official language you learn at school) is the German spoken around Hannover, which is in the North.

Ralf

"Hmm, I just checked on the web, the average male German is 1.81m (5'11"), maybe that's why..."

Hmm, That makes me "Mr average" in Germany!

I was told by a swiss person that swiss-german is a different dialect and that if a german was to walk into a swiss shop the swiss people would deliberately speak a rich form of swiss-german to annoy the german person! Is this true?

The Swiss certainly have different greetings. They say Grüß Gott! which they abbreviate to Grüß! The Austrians also say Grüß Gott! But they abbreviate it to S'Gott! The Germans say, Scheiße, ein verdammte Englander! ... Or to each other Guten Morgan! Guten Tag! or Guten Abend! which they abbreviate to 'Morgan! 'Tag! or 'Abend!

Actually, "Grüß Gott" is used by the Bavarians, whereas the Swiss rather use "Grüzi".

Swiss German is substantially different from german German to a degree that we (the Germans) don't understand them when they talk to each other. They understand us though since their official language (the one they learn at school) is german German.

The "annoying german tourists on purpose" is definitely true, but that's only because german tourists are obnoxious and unbearable. But that's not too much different from UK tourists, they are known to get wasted and start harassing people. I guess that's the main reason why UK and Germany were on the last two places in a european popularity survey... :)

Ralf

"Actually, 'Grüß Gott' is used by the Bavarians, whereas the Swiss rather use 'Grüzi'."

Strange. Whenever I've been in the Bernese Oberland they've used Grüß Gott and Grüß. I've never heard Grüzi, but it sounds vaguely Italian. Perhaps it varies from canton to canton?

FOOTPATH SIGNS, NEWTON-LE-WILLOWS

A reply dated 15 July has now been received from Mr R C Hepworth, Director of Urban Regeneration and Housing, St. Helens Metropolitan Council. It's lengthy, but on the decision to use only kilometres and metres on their footpath signs, he says: "...the project manager believed that it was right to continue to move the process of metrication forward...".

There is also a claim that footpaths in Newton-le-Willows don't come under the Traffic Signs Regulations 1994, news that would come as a considerable surprise to the Lee Valley Park who paid thousands of pounds for a barrister's Opinion telling them that their footpath signs were *illegal*. The law is the same in Lancashire as Hertfordshire - at least until E.U.-sponsored regional government comes in.

He totally ducks the point we made about the vast majority of British people thinking in, and preferring, British units - yet another typical example of officials saying: 'we know best'

Tony Bennett

So, are project managers "officials" now ?

Tony, have you ever noticed that the "vast majority" doesn't do anything at all ?

Seemingly, the United Kingdom is run by "minorities","officials" and "pressure groups".

Unless the majority of the UK sells fish and groceries, I'm losing more and more faith in your "majority" supporting your cause...

Ralf

The problem now becomes what can be done if this attitude by the officials is maintained.If they will not accept they are breaking the law how can it be enforced.

In response to the previous two posts:

1. A letter has been sent today by ARM to St. Helens Council, in which (inter alia) we make a specific offer to pay for the conversion of their illegal signs (by us - to an agreed standard) to legal miles and yards - and co-operate with their officials in agreeing what distances should be placed on those signs. We have given them a further 21 days to respond and the Council of ARM will consider the matter further after the expiry of that period. A full copy of our letter is available by e-mail

2. A project manager employed by a Council is an 'official'. So is the Chief Executive of that authority, so are most white collar staff of Councils, and other organisations. Offcials are there to serve the public. Serving the public does not include 'moving the process of metrication forward'

3. Agreed, Ralf, that the 'vast majority' who favour British weights and measures don't do very much. But then again surveys show around 70% of British people oppose the euro, and similar percentages oppose the current scale of inward immigration and would wish to see the restoration of the death penalty for premeditated murder - and those majorities don't do much either.

A current problem for all of those concerned to advance a political agenda or policy issue of any kind is the extent to which today people's concerns have switched away from politics to e.g. sport and entertainment. The drop of around 4 million people who voted in the 2001 General Election compared with the 1997 GE is ample proof of that trend. This situation allows those in power to advance their agenda much more rapidly than they used to be able to

Tony Bennett

Dated 30 July, the latest letter from St. Helens Council is markedly different in tone from the first one.

This time it says:

"I note that...you are willing to defer any action for a further 21 days for the Council to consider further this matter. We will use this period to further investigate this complex issue...we will furnish you with the Council's definitive position on this matter within 21 days of receipt of your letter"

Tony Bennett

>...and similar percentages oppose the current scale
>of inward immigration and would wish to see the
>restoration of the death penalty for premeditated
>murder - and those majorities don't do much either

Yup, Tony, and that is exactly the reason why the public shouldn't have a say in some things.

It is a sign of a civilized society to abolish the death penalty (as Turkey just did a few days ago), it tells you that that society surpassed the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" notion.

It is sad, but I take your word for it that the majority favors the death penalty, but that only shows you that law is not only there to protect one individual from another, but also to protect the individuals from themselves.

Without laws like that we never would have got out of the middle ages.

Ralf

No society on Earth has ever eliminated the death penalty, nor is it remotely likely that any society could ever exist without it. Remove the penalty from the law and it will inevitably be applied instead without benefit of due process by armed police murdering with impunity (their immunity soon to be guaranteed under the Treaty of Nice), by secret services, by prison guards, by the military, by political thugs - and by common criminals. Pretending to abolish the death penalty is no sign of civilisation, but of decadence and wickedness. It is no accident that violent crime runs wild wherever this folly is introduced (not only has the murder rate in this country increased more than tenfold since the death penalty for murder was abolished, but the British state kills more people annually now than it used to execute).

Ralf, you really are a fascist, aren't you?

Paul:

I think there are quite a few more factors that play into the increase of crime than just the abolishment of the death penalty.

Bryan:

No, I'm not a fascist, I just acknowledge the limits of direct democracy.

Ralf

Of course there are other factors in the growth of crime, but the abolition of the death penalty, and the reduction of other penalties, are among the most important. Increasing improbability of receiving the full sentence also has a major effect (thus the US has a huge murder rate, having abolished the death penalty previously and never effectively restored it, since only around 1 in 2000 murderers are actually executed, which obviously has very little deterrent effect).

I would agree with you that popular approval is no guarantee of correctness - but nor is the contrary approval of the establishment. In these cases (immigration and capital punishment) it is the people that are (mainly) in the right and the politicos that are wrong. In the case of weights and measures the people are not only right but fundamentally HAVE the right to use their customary units whatever the politicos may pretend to belief. Democratic majorities have no right to impose their will upon dissenting minorities in violation of their individual rights - but still less have powerful minorities the right to impose upon the majority.

{thus the US has a huge murder rate, having abolished the death penalty previously and never effectively restored it}

A number of U.S. states never abolished the death penalty at all. I'm not too sure about the Feds.

{thus the US has a huge murder rate, having abolished the death penalty previously and never effectively restored it}

About 16 states still have the death penalty (restored in 1973). Even the feds still execute people (mostly for serious crimes), among others when the crime in question was committed in a "non-death penalty state".

I had the feeling that its abolition was mandated federally (possibly by a Supreme Court decision, later reversed), but I'm not sure. Anyway, the crucial statistic is that the execution rate is currently only a tiny fraction of the murder rate - hence deterrence is poor.

The US Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional in 1972. They reversed this ruling four years later, and a number of states reinstated it. (BTW, a recent ruling affirmed the constitutionality of the electric chair, which had been challenged in Florida after a condemned man caught fire during his execution.)

It was during the four-year interval without the death penality that Charles Manson was convicted and sentenced. This is why he is still alive.

A few notes on 'eye for an eye', 'tooth for a tooth' etc.

If you sudy Jewish civil and criminal law more carefully - especially the Book of Deuteronomy which sets out, inter alia, the criminal code for Israel when it crossed the Jordan for the first time into the 'Promised Land' - 'eye for an eye' was not a prescription for revenge; rather a prescription that the punishment should fit the crime.

Thus the deliberate killing of another person warranted the death penalty. In crimes of theft, you were required to repay double the amount stolen, and so on. Admittedly the penalties for some crimes was serious, but then according to historical evidence the crime rate was very low in Israeli society. I think it still is in today's Israel, conflict with the Palestinians excluded.

BTW, support for the death penalty in Britain and the USA is consistent at around 60% - 75%. I believe it is similar in other countries.

It was Alfred the Great who codified and expanded English law based on Biblical principles (as well as spending some time translating parts of the Bible into English). He derived his legal principles from the Old Testament, including the principle of being held innocent until proved guilty by a minimum of *two* witnesses (Deuteronomy again).

-------------------------------------------------------

It is very dangerous to set oneself above the public, thinking one knows better than they do.

A classic example was the vote in Scotland (three years ago?) to keep Section 28, organised by Brian Souter. More than one million people voted and a resounding 87% said they wanted to keep Section 28 - not because they were in any way 'homophobes', but because they felt that tolerance towards homosexuals was being stretched beyond acceptable limits by the proposed active promotion of homosexuality as a valid alternative lifestyle to schoolchildren as young as nine or eight. What was the reaction of the Scottish Parliament? Within three weeks, they repealed Section 28. A vivid illustration of the growing gap between the elite who rule and we, the people.

Politicians should remember they have a mandate to *represent* the people, not drive through a programme which has been supported by as few as 25% of the people and in some cases a programme that has not even been put to the electorate (compulsory metrication being another classic example).


Tony Bennett

I agree, and that point really ought to be emphasised: yes indeed, total and direct democracy would almost definately be a nightmare, but the politicians are there to REPRESENT THE CITIZENS. Ralf, please take note here.

Those who advocate the death penalty should ponder some of the cases of wrongful convictions. If they had been executed what chance of reparation?

{About 16 states still have the death penalty (restored in 1973). Even the feds still execute people (mostly for serious crimes), among others when the crime in question was committed in a "non-death penalty state".}

38 actually.

pip,

Please give the names of all those wrongfully convicted and hanged in Britain, say from 1900 onwards. The longer the list, the more you will prove your point. If you can't answer with specific names, your argument is lost

Tony Bennett

From Bryan:
> but the politicians are there to REPRESENT THE
>CITIZENS

From Tony:
> vivid illustration of the growing gap between the
>elite who rule and we, the people.

Bryan, Tony,
politicians have two responsibilities: a) to represent the people, b) to do what's best for the people.
These two things often don't go together too well, because : People have a strong opinion about things they have no frickin' clue about ! (classic example: atomic energy)
There is a good reason why the "elite" rules all societies. That reason is not because they're smart enough to "sneak" their way up, but because they're the only ones able to lead the country.

If you want to see what happens when the elite doesn't lead the country, look at the US. Bush has so far one recession and one war on his account and he is openly thinking about starting another war. This will probably please the majority of US citizens because the broad public is always for extreme measures, eventually however it will drive the country into ruin.

Ralf

Oops, I think I got a little carried away...
Sorry for that !

Cheers,
Ralf

"Oops, I think I got a little carried away..."

Indeed. Ralf, myself and others have "conceded" the point that following the public whims at all times would not be very good, however, politicians aren't there to tell people what is right and what is not, and what is good for the people and what is not, at all times. Politicians often ignore what we want and what would be good for us, not out of good motives or understanding of the situation, but because, well... you could speculate, but suffice it to say, these politicians are not super humans, you know, and are open to the same flaws that everybody else is. Perhaps they are open to those flaws even more so than the "ordinary" citizen.

There have been some cases in the recent past of wrong or at least doubtful convictions. The Guilford 4, and Birmingham 6 for example.

Surely you acknowledge that our judicial system is not perfect and mistakes are made.

My point is that when people are executed options are closed off.

Concerning the death penalty discussion:
I think no human being has the right to decide over someone else's right to live, simply because there's no way to restore it.
It only takes one erroneous sentence to do the damage.
Still supporting it then is the same as saying: "Well, one more or less, who cares ?", meaning "As long as it's not me, I'm fine with it" and shows a general disregard for (other people's) life.

Ralf

{Bush has so far one recession and one war on his account}

Both the war and the recession were caused by forces beyond Bush's control (the recession in particular). As to the war, no nation on Earth would let a direct assault on it's homeland go unpunished.

Mr. Bush has many flaws as a leader, but I would STILL prefer him to that slimy, yellow-bellied, socialistic, baby-hating, scrawny-minded excuse for a human being he was running agaist (otherwise known as Al Gore).

MikeW: I doubt many Europeans share your opinion...

Gore imho was vastly superior to Bush.

{MikeW: I doubt many Europeans share your opinion...}

They're entitled to their opinion.

{Gore imho was vastly superior to Bush.}

I can't share your opinion.

Hey Bryan,

this must be the first thing in weeks we agree on !

Cheers,
Ralf

Yes, unfortunately for my right wing chums on this board and others, I think Bush is an inbred imbecile. No, I haven't been bought in by the Anti-American propoganda, but Bush is just simply thick.

pip,

I am well aware of your point, but could you please answer my question which was: when Britain had the death penalty, how many people, say from 1900 onwards, were wrongfully convicted and hanged please - what are their names. I am not at the moment discussing wrongful convictions for crimes other than murder.



Tony Bennett

Yeah, and what was their dental coverage ?
Remember, Tony, it only takes one person to prove make our point.

Ralf

I have a question, perhaps even challenge, to Ralf, Conrad, Pip and any other metricite here, and that is: Do you favour a "decimal" time system? That is, 10 seconds in a minute, 100 minutes in an hour- that sort of thing. Just curious...

Not that old "anything is better than that a single innocent man should be hanged" gag again!

First, if it were valid, the very same argument could be applied to every other form of punishment whatsoever, so long as even a single person were wrongly punished without subsequent restitution - a rule that if honestly applied would eliminate any possibility of justice altogether.

Second, the abolition of the formal death penalty after conviction of murder in a court of law, with all its inbuilt safeguards, inevitably results in informal executions without benefit of due process. Is it somehow morally preferable that armed police should descend on a man walking home with a repaired garden implement in a paper bag and shoot him dead, on the spurious basis that they thought he was about to shoot them with it?

Third, by conspiring to deny justice to the victim and full retribution to the murderer - as well as by denying individuals the right of self defence - you make yourself an accessory to those murders and share responsibility for the deaths of thousands of innocent murder victims thereafter. Justice cannot be perfect, but the harm done to innocents by a few mistaken convictions does not begin to compare with the harm done to innocents by a refusal adequately to punish the guilty.