June
The motion for the June debate was "The death sentence needs to be reinstated". Proposer Jean Cheek argued that most UK murders are random acts, happen for trivial reasons, are committed by people who place no value on human life and who are not bothered by the potential consequences of their actions. She felt that the average life sentence of only 10 years is not a disincentive to most killers who seem content to serve their time in prison, free from worry because their basic needs are being met by the taxpayer. She considered that as a result prisons had become overcrowded, are costly to run and bringing back the death penalty as a deterrent is the only viable option to break the cycle of violent crime.
Opposer Helen Rees disagreed stating that punishing people by death is wrong and only serves to bring us down to the level of the offender. It is sought by people who want revenge but it has no place in a civilised society. She reasoned that the death penalty in some places in America did not appear to improve their murder rates, which are greater than in Europe where the Convention of Human Rights prohibits it’s use. She maintained that many people convicted of murder go on to commit suicide while in prison. Also there are numerous miscarriages of justice but there is no way back once the death sentence has been carried out.
Following a wide range of thoughtful comments from the floor, the motion was defeated by 7 votes to 4 with 2 abstentions.
May
For the May debate, a mother and son team got together to contest the motion: "Advice from Elders should always be respected”. Proposer Mary Lane defined ‘respect’ as treating people with deferential politeness and esteem and said it should always be given to the elderly because they have an abundance of knowledge and wisdom gained over many years from reflecting on their mistakes and that should be revered. After all, the elderly know what it is like to be young but the young do not know what it is like to be old. This limited experience meant the young were incapable of possessing a really deep understanding of events in their life. Furthermore, their insistence in foolish and erroneous ideas often led to obstinacy and pig headedness.
Opposer Chris Lane disagreed, citing ‘Elders’ as being a relative term and not just confined to those of advanced years. However, placing focus on the word ‘always’, he argued that experience was not just the sole prerogative of older people who could also be narrow minded and give nonsensical advice. In the past the young only had their elders to provide them with guidance but in this fast changing world, progress depended on younger, radical, free thinking people able to access a plethora of information on the internet. In addition, directives given from a stance of domination and control could be extremely harmful.
Following varied and amusing contributions from the floor, the motion was narrowly defeated.
April
At the April session, those present discussed a variety of topical issues including whether Mental Health problems are becoming fashionable, Research into Near Death Experiences should be properly funded, Joe Biden is too old for another Presidential term and the BBC should read out the names of all 32,000 killed in Palestine not just the British Aid Workers. A lot of lively and thoughtful views were shared and debated.
March
For the February debate, Helen Rees proposed the motion: "Our political leaders have only represented one side of the conflict in the Middle East”. She provided a succinct history of events leading up to the current day crisis starting with the Balfour Declaration of 1917 which expressed the British Government’s support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. She felt that no foreign power should have imposed the sectioning of an Arab land for another nation as it would not have been tolerated anywhere else in the world and had only served to worsen the relationship between Jews and Arabs. She stated that in recent times, the mortality rate was much higher for Palestine but despite this, our politicians only appeared to be supporting Israel.
Opposer Chris Lane disagreed citing numerous articles where both Conservative and Labour leaders had spoken out against the use of violence on both sides and had specified their support for a more normalised, stable and secure two state solution acting within international, humanitarian law. However he believed that our politicians were right to make it clear that Israel should be able to defend itself against acts of terrorism as long as only reasonable force was used and consideration was given for human life. Furthermore he asserted that our politicians were trying to encourage a future where the prospect of progress could be made in enabling peace for all concerned.
Following a variety of thought provoking responses from the floor, the motion was overwhelmingly defeated.
January