Old Laws And Customs

[Bayleaf]

Anyone think of any good ones we could revive? Such as this?

[vox]

Anyone think of any good ones we could revive? Such as this?

I used to teach archery (just at corporate events) and I learned quite a bit about it's history to give me something to chatter about to the teams.

A few things I remember are:

I think it was Henry V111 who introduced this law in order to always have a mass of skilled archers to call on in time of war. (A master stroke)

An archer is called a Toxophilite

During the Anglo French wars, the French would cut off the two fingers of any English bowman they captured.

This rendered them useless as archers. "The 2 finger salute" was a gesture to the French from the English indicating that they were still in possession, and a force to be reckoned with. Or possibly from the French to the English saying "watch out we'll have your fingers". I can't remember which.

The Wicker was, I think, used for Archery Games.

I had all sorts of Archery trivia at my fingertips at one time.

[Guest skeets]

Anyone think of any good ones we could revive? Such as this?

HI All , l know this has been discussed countless times, but l think that the death penalty should be considered for revival, not only for murder but for repeated cases of child molestation where treatment has failed, as these people are a scourge on society and also a drain on the public purse, l do not agree with hanging or electrocution, but a simple injection could not be classed as barbaric , Skeets.

[DaveH]

I think it was Henry V111 who introduced this law in order to always have a mass of skilled archers to call on in time of war. (A master stroke)

During the Anglo French wars, the French would cut off the two fingers of any English bowman they captured.

This rendered them useless as archers. "The 2 finger salute" was a gesture to the French from the English indicating that they were still in possession, and a force to be reckoned with. Or possibly from the French to the English saying "watch out we'll have your fingers". I can't remember which.

When Edward I took on and beat the Welsh he was extremely impressed with the power of the Welsh archers, so much so that having beaten them (and made his own son the first "Prince of Wales") he then incorporated them into his own army (another master stroke). The Welsh power came from a longer than normal bow made of yew, a particularly strong, flexible, springy wood. Ironically this weapon which was superior to any other bow at that time became known as the "English Longbow". A few years later Edward was up against the Scots in another land border dispute. Rather than risk his "best men" in a fierce battle against the Scots he sent in his Welsh archers to "see what they could do", - and if they lost and were killed he had only lost "captured Welshmen". Once again Edward was amazed at the awesome power of his Welsh archers who easily broke up a Scottish charge and drove them back. This new weapon was "the atomic bomb of the 14th century" and when the 100 years war started against France it came into its own. It was first used to leathal effect against the French by Edward III's archers at the Battle of Crecy in the 1340's, and more famously by Henry V in 1415 at the battle of Agincourt. Despite the English super weapon the French did eventually win the 100 years war and free their country of English occupation, - leading to the legends of the "2 fingered salute" also mentioned previously. Even in the 1500's at the time of Henry VIII the longbow was such a fearsome weapon that he maintained his archery unit as stated previously. But by now its days were numbered as gunpowder and the new firing weapons were even more destructive and frightening (noise and smoke) even though at this stage only just matching the range and nowhere near the accuracy of an arrow.

[DaveH]

HI All , l know this has been discussed countless times, but l think that the death penalty should be considered for revival

Problem with the death penalty is that some of us older ones spent our youthful days living in a country where the death penalty was carried out. The death penaly, by hanging, was only abolished in Britain in 1965 and removed from statute in 1969 so it is still in living memory. In France, the death penalty, by guillotine, was only abolished in 1978 and removed from statute in 1981.

So it is still well within living memory.

Generally speaking, older people, that can remember it, want it bringing back, while the younger ones, who have never known a death penalty in their own lifetime find it a totally abhorrent idea and do not want it.

So, the longer it is left before it's reintroduction is considered, the less likely it is to be reintroduced.

The arguments put forward to abolish the death penalty were based on several well publicised cases of incorrect verdicts and innocent men being hung. The 2 most publicised being the case of Timmothy Evans, whose wife was murdered by John Christie who then "set him up" and this case of Derek Bentley in the "Craig and bentley" trial. It appears that Bentley's coviction was based on him saying very ambiguously "let him have it Chris" to his associate Christopher Craig who at the time was pointing a gun at a police officer.

Although these days with indisputable evidence such as that provided by DNA analysis for example such miscarriages of justice are much less likely to happen I feel that people would no longer tollerate any mistakes like these been made because, when there was a death penalty, most people felt "protected" from crime by it, - criminals would hang BUt they felt safe because they knew they hadn't commited any crime themselves. However, if mistakes are made there is always that nagging doubt in everyones mind that "it could be me being hung".

[hilldweller]

Wouldn't it be nice if we could revive the old custom of being polite and courteous to each other. To find the time to begin talking again to our neighbours and showing regard and respect to the elderly again instead of thinking of them as easy pickings. Since I became somewhat disabled I have discovered how many businesses have been set up to fleece the old and halt, who are now regarding as easy pickings.

When you compare this forum with the some others I won't mention it gives you a renewed hope that there are still some good people around.

HD

[Stuart0742]

Wouldn't it be nice if we could revive the old custom of being polite and courteous to each other. To find the time to begin talking again to our neighbours and showing regard and respect to the elderly again instead of thinking of them as easy pickings. Since I became somewhat disabled I have discovered how many businesses have been set up to fleece the old and halt, who are now regarding as easy pickings.

When you compare this forum with the some others I won't mention it gives you a renewed hope that there are still some good people around.

HD

What the old custom of telephoning your bank and actually speaking to a person in your local branch

[DaveH]

With the present state of the economy if they brought back the old laws concerning debtors jails, where people who owed money and were unable to pay were put in prison, then the Government would have to find prison cell places for the vast majority of the population. :o

[DaveH]

Being interested in traction engines and steam on the road I have always had an interest in "The red flag act". A law passed by horse riding politicians who had a grudge against engines and didn't like progress because they had a vested interest in horse drawn transport.

The original law, more correctly called "The Locomotives Act, 1865 rather than "the red flag act required, amongst other things, that any mechanically propelled vehicle shall proceed along the highway at a speed of no more than 2 mph (later increased to 4 mph) with one of its crew to proceede on foot, not less than 60 yards ahead (later reduced to 20 yards) carrying a red flag to warn passers by and oncoming vehicles (horses) of its approach. The engine was also required to stop instantly on a flag signal from the red flagman to allow oncoming traffic to pass with ease and without causing alarm to man or beast.

Now, imagine if they brought that law back.

Wouldn't it be great driving your car down the M1 at 2 mph with one of your passengers or friends walking 20 yards in front of you waving a red flag! lol

[Guest skeets]

Problem with the death penalty is that some of us older ones spent our youthful days living in a country where the death penalty was carried out. The death penaly, by hanging, was only abolished in Britain in 1965 and removed from statute in 1969 so it is still in living memory. In France, the death penalty, by guillotine, was only abolished in 1978 and removed from statute in 1981.

So it is still well within living memory.

Generally speaking, older people, that can remember it, want it bringing back, while the younger ones, who have never known a death penalty in their own lifetime find it a totally abhorrent idea and do not want it.

So, the longer it is left before it's reintroduction is considered, the less likely it is to be reintroduced.

The arguments put forward to abolish the death penalty were based on several well publicised cases of incorrect verdicts and innocent men being hung. The 2 most publicised being the case of Timmothy Evans, whose wife was murdered by John Christie who then "set him up" and this case of Derek Bentley in the "Craig and bentley" trial. It appears that Bentley's coviction was based on him saying very ambiguously "let him have it Chris" to his associate Christopher Craig who at the time was pointing a gun at a police officer.

Although these days with indisputable evidence such as that provided by DNA analysis for example such miscarriages of justice are much less likely to happen I feel that people would no longer tollerate any mistakes like these been made because, when there was a death penalty, most people felt "protected" from crime by it, - criminals would hang BUt they felt safe because they knew they hadn't commited any crime themselves. However, if mistakes are made there is always that nagging doubt in everyones mind that "it could be me being hung".

HI DaveH As you say, these days the chance of disposing of the wrong person is minute, so why should the decent people of a lovely country, pay!, to house and feed this scum and trash, that heeds mothers and children, or anyone for that matter, enjoying the environment without the element of anxiety, as for the younger end not votlng for the death penalty, perhaps they have not lived long enough for the horror of these crimes to absorb, until they are personally affected, then it's absorbed, WHEN WILL THE POWERS THAT BE REALISE THIS IS THE ONLY REAL DETERRENT.skeets

[DaveH]

HI DaveH As you say, these days the chance of disposing of the wrong person is minute, so why should the decent people of a lovely country, pay!, to house and feed this scum and trash, that heeds mothers and children, or anyone for that matter, enjoying the environment without the element of anxiety, as for the younger end not votlng for the death penalty, perhaps they have not lived long enough for the horror of these crimes to absorb, until they are personally affected, then it's absorbed, WHEN WILL THE POWERS THAT BE REALISE THIS IS THE ONLY REAL DETERRENT.skeets

This week America has executed one of its criminals by firing squad

American Death Penalty

The guy chose to be executed by firing squad, rather than by lethal injection, and was allowed to do so because, although this method of execution has been unlawful in Utah since 2004 he had commited his crime long before that.

I certainly don't agree with convicted criminals living on death row for years and years and fighting endless legal battles to try and get let off. I think that once convicted and sentenced then the sentence should be carried out fairly quickly, whatever that sentence may be.

When this was being discussed on British TV, an anti death penalty campaigner claimed that "It costs more to execute a prisoner than to keep him locked up for the rest of their lives"

I still haven't got my head around this ridiculous claim, - surely it's got to be the other way around.

Dead men don't cost money or run up bills do they?

and, the one thing which is really in favour of a death penalty is that you don't get "repeat offenders" committing the same crime again after coming out of prison.

Dead men don't commit crimes.

[Guest plain talker]

This week America has executed one of its criminals by firing squad

American Death Penalty

The guy chose to be executed by firing squad, rather than by lethal injection, and was allowed to do so because, although this method of execution has been unlawful in Utah since 2004 he had commited his crime long before that.

I certainly don't agree with convicted criminals living on death row for years and years and fighting endless legal battles to try and get let off. I think that once convicted and sentenced then the sentence should be carried out fairly quickly, whatever that sentence may be.

When this was being discussed on British TV, an anti death penalty campaigner claimed that "It costs more to execute a prisoner than to keep him locked up for the rest of their lives"

I still haven't got my head around this ridiculous claim, - surely it's got to be the other way around.

Dead men don't cost money or run up bills do they?

and, the one thing which is really in favour of a death penalty is that you don't get "repeat offenders" committing the same crime again after coming out of prison.

Dead men don't commit crimes.

But didn't he choose Rooney, Gerrard, and Heskey as his firing squad?

[Bayleaf]

This week America has executed one of its criminals by firing squad

American Death Penalty

The guy chose to be executed by firing squad, rather than by lethal injection, and was allowed to do so because, although this method of execution has been unlawful in Utah since 2004 he had commited his crime long before that.

I certainly don't agree with convicted criminals living on death row for years and years and fighting endless legal battles to try and get let off. I think that once convicted and sentenced then the sentence should be carried out fairly quickly, whatever that sentence may be.

When this was being discussed on British TV, an anti death penalty campaigner claimed that "It costs more to execute a prisoner than to keep him locked up for the rest of their lives"

I still haven't got my head around this ridiculous claim, - surely it's got to be the other way around.

Dead men don't cost money or run up bills do they?

and, the one thing which is really in favour of a death penalty is that you don't get "repeat offenders" committing the same crime again after coming out of prison.

Dead men don't commit crimes.

Unfortunately Dave so many of the people on 'death row' in the USA are there on very dubious convictions, and spend years trying to overturn the judgement. A quick execution might be neat and tidy, but killing innocent people for crimes committed by someone else who is free to commit further crimes isn't justice.

(I shall now take my soapbox elsewhere. Anyone know of any other controversies I can stick my oar into? )

[DaveH]

Unfortunately Dave so many of the people on 'death row' in the USA are there on very dubious convictions, and spend years trying to overturn the judgement. A quick execution might be neat and tidy, but killing innocent people for crimes committed by someone else who is free to commit further crimes isn't justice.

(I shall now take my soapbox elsewhere. Anyone know of any other controversies I can stick my oar into? )

To some extent that may be true, - but I did point out that in these days with DNA and other sophisticated forensic techniques the number of innocent men wrongly convicted of a capital offence is likely to be much less than it was in the 1950's

The American states which retain the death penalty tend to be the Southern States, where racism is still common even today.

I don't like the unfairness of the "constantly appeal and reappeal against your conviction to stay alive on Death Row" culture, especially when the people appealing are, on the weight of evidence, guilty as charged.

This has resulted in a system where rich Americans (usually White) can live their guilty lives out on Death Row by effectively "paying" to stay their by hiring a good lawyer to constantly appeal on their behalf.

On the other hand poor Americans (often Black) cannot afford to do this and are much more likely therefore for their initial sentence (death) to be carried out. As racism still exists in these states, how many innocent Black people have been framed and "set up" to carry the can for a capital crime?

It hardly seems a fair system, - much less fair than the one I was suggesting.