DanBettin

spot on

Entirely missed my point. Forget it.

Don't be apologising, as I've already said I think your perspective on it is the most noble. The thing is, I don't disagree with you with regard to the fact he is entitled to it being all wrong. But I think the subtlety of where we place the 'blame' (or criticism, at least) matters. It's not his fault, I would hope he did something great with that amount of money, I certainly would. I don't know how you could take that money and not do something kind with it. But if I was him I would definitely take it, and I'm not sure I'd call that greed. That's the only point I was making. I do not think this situation is right, likewise I don't think it's personal.

I think you're being too emotional and taking it too personally to be able to rationally debate this, not sure there's much merit in me replying properly. You've missed my point a few times.

I know your intentions are good, but I think it's just a knee-jerk reaction to the sheer size of the pay out that has you comparing it to what else it could be used for. It s a noble perspective, but I don't think it's your right to call it greed or not. You didn't really answer any of my questions. The point I'm trying to get at is we'd probably all do the same in his position. So don't hate the player, hate the game. Don't call it greed, unless you're the anomaly that opts to pay out far beyond what you would otherwise be taxed, and opt to always spend your money on other better uses of it. I don't disagree, actually. I think when the finger stops pointing at the system and starts pointing at the individual, though, I have a problem with that.

How do you know he won't make change with it? Are you judging the fact he was legally entitled to it or judging what he should and shouldn't do with it? EDIT: Also, what constitutes greed? That is subjective. We may play the game and not evade tax, for example, but most of us will avoid it (to different degrees). I'm not sure playing the game by taking what is legally his is any different. Are we all greedy? If so, how can we judge him? What would you rather he did?

Would you not take the bonus if you were him?

Deport who??

Don't know, I don't claim to know. But it has become systemic, so the solution must be. It's almost like, within these circles, knife crime has been glorified, at the very least lost it's stigma - it needs to be stigmatised.

Precisely.

I feel like a lot of people are looking in the wrong places for the cause of the increase in knife-related crime. I've seen the finger pointed at schools, drug laws, lack of police - none of which is the cause. It's simply a culture thing. Inside the life of these gangs, people don't hold the same perception on violent crime - not at all, not in the slightest. It is glorified to the point that it's part of their duty in order to play the game they have to play. Your politicians and TV figures debating this don't have to play the same game, never have, so they project reason and rationale that simply doesn't apply.

I can't stand this perspective on it, you need to stop. It seems to be a lot of people like yourself that ruin the cause for more study into CBD and THC. Why must you be radical about it and use it as an argument against tried and tested technology and treatments such as chemotherapy? It is a dangerous message to spread that we can screw the NHS by using cannabis instead of chemo. Like you, I've had chemo, it saved my life and it sounds like it saved yours too, you seem to be ungrateful for that. Nevertheless, I am VERY keen on seeing more and more serious peer-reviewed medical studies into the benefits of THC and CBD, but for now (at least) it is NOT an alternative. Or at least isn't proven as one. As an aside, more specific to the OP, it is said (with less than adequate medical evidence) that a 1:1 ratio of THC and CBD is optimal. The problem is that our country appears to be stuck in the stone age with it's classification of THC. So these CBD oils lack, what some my claim, is a key active ingredient for medicinal application. So I don't doubt it has it's benefits, but the illegal route (some may say, not me) is said to be most effective. I am not personally advocating this route, since it's illegal.

This should not be a crime, at all. It is a massive dig at free speech. It is absurd that we attempt to police people's scumbag humour, nobody likes these people, without doubt they are ****, but where do you draw the line at legislating offensiveness? EDIT: Apologies for the need for edit! Didn't know that level of censoring words was required, I'll keep it in mind.

Wow. I give up. I'm out

People are literally CLUELESS on how to debate or have a conversation with someone who opposes you (in the debate) without calling names or nit-picking over punctuation, or just general ad-hominen nonsense. I'm talking about most of you in this thread. Youre a very funny man Henry. You say lack of 'logical argument' Its logical to me, otherwise I wouldnt bother writing it, but its not logical to you ? Perhaps its your logic that is flawed ? Are you taking me under your wing ,to put me right ? Bless You understand me ? ? But what about my 'lack of logical argument ?? Now Im confused. Whats even more confusing is your education level ! I thought by your superior moral and intellectual stance , I was dealing with a multi Phd level brain! And here we go with the 'dismissive' tones of the logical fallacy (ad hominem) retort, not for the first time either. Its a way of nullifying my argument, because you cannot find an answer to counter it, or (heaven forbid) agree with it , or find common ground. If part of your job is to educate people, I certainly hope you dont use the same tone as you do on here, otherwise you will not be Mr popular. Yes I come here to be educated, and I am on a daily basis, my mind is very open, always has been, and no I dont take it personally, I am an extremely laid back person. Your views are your own, and mine are mine, if I see a different perspective that works with my current worldview ,I will take it on board. But you need to practice what you preach. Bit of nonsense from most people in here. Just people getting digs in left, right and centre. Struggling to pick out any salient points amongst all that hot-air. Pointless. Even if I was wrong about my points on the death penalty, at least I made points and attempted to substantiate them. Make your point, provide some evidence, and stay open to having your mind changed, I'm fast being put off PW because people are just arguing for argument's sake, bickering.