It's time to bring back the cat o' nine tails

First of all, I should like to address the You Tube clip my opponent embedded which depicted a flogging scene from the olden days. Now, we don't know who the prisoner was or what his crime was, but you can bet it was more than illegally parking his chariot – more likely criminal damage in a temple or even inciting civil unrest, and we shouldn't have any sympathy with the sort of lowlife scum that commits those sorts of crimes – plus this historical hippy didn't even have the self-respect to get a shave and a haircut once in a while – in fact, he probably deserved the lashing he got and a lot more besides. Moving on, my opponent seems to claim that poor people are poor, not because they have economically deprived backgrounds and their educational opportunities were, therefore, limited but rather that they squander what little money they have on frivolities such as lottery tickets. He further claims that the wealthy are rich, not because they were born with silver spoons in their mouths and had all the educational advantages money can buy, but rather that they put money aside to cover such contingencies as parking tickets. Oh that it were the case: if it were then 70% of the land in England wouldn't be owned by the aristocracy who constitute a mere 0.6% of the population. [1] The fact is, the rich get richer by simply investing their spare cash. Even at today's historically low interest rates of 5% a braying toff could invest his ï¿½50 million (US$78 million) inheritance in an offshore savings account and cream off ï¿½2ï¿½ million (US$4 million) a year – tax free. Meanwhile, the average employee toils like a coolie to earn ï¿½25,000 (US$40,000) per annum [2] – in other words it would take an ordinary worker a thousand years to earn what an indolent country landowner gets paid in interest in just one year – plus the workers' income is taxed – there are no offshore banking scams that people on low and middle incomes can take advantage of. Think of it this way, if an average citizen dropped a penny on the floor he might reasonably think that it is not worth bending down to pick it up since you need at least 330 pennies to buy a beer in a pub. On the other hand, with an income a thousand times greater, a member of the landed gentry would think the same way about dropping a ten pound note – enough money to buy three beers down the pub! So, if you fine a hoighty-toighty, toffee-nosed, chinless wonder ï¿½120 (US$188) it is the same as a 12p (12 cents) fine to an ordinary person. Not much of a punishment, is it? That's why the police should drag these moneyed miscreants out of their gold plated, diamond-encrusted mega-cars; rip off their tailor-made, bespoke-designer silk shirts; bundle them to the ground and thrash them mercilessly with a cat o' nine tails. Now, my opponent describes this practice as "barbaric" but is whipping somebody really a more cruel and unusual punishment than electrocuting or shooting them? After all, the police in countries like the United States of America carry both Tasers (which have resulted in the deaths of 150 people [2}) and guns (which have killed countless thousands of people) but very few people would describe American policemen "barbarians" (at least not to their faces). Next, I would like to refer you to my You Tube clip. It shows a toff writing off his ï¿½250,000 (US$400,000) Rolls-Royce Phantom (money can buy you posh cars but it can't buy you driving skills). He had just passed a police car which no doubt attended the scene of the accident and fined the upper-class driver for reckless driving. We don't know what the fine was but it was probably around ï¿½100 (US$155) – about what it costs to fill the Roller's tank up with fuel. Of course, the snobby, over-privileged driver of the wrecked Rolls wouldn't have given a hoot about such a trifling sum of money - but it probably would have meant a great deal to the family in the little red Fiat that the runaway Roller nearly wiped out. * Finally, my opponent suggested that the rich should be fined the same as the poor as an incentive for poor people to become rich – partly so that they could get away with petty crimes relatively lightly. I think this sends the wrong message – it suggests that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor – that if you become wealthy you will able to block the traffic or cause criminal damage in religious buildings or incite civil unrest and get away with it just by handing over a tiny fraction of your income as a penance. No, it is wrong that ordinary people should be punished less than the rich – we should all be equal in the eyes of the law – and that's why it's time to bring back the cat o' nine tails. Thank you. [1] . http://www.aristocracyuk.co.uk... [2] . http://www.statistics.gov.uk... [3] . http://www.amnestyusa.org... . http://www.youtube.com... * In case you wondered, the Rolls-Royce and the camera car were both British (notice the the steering wheels on the right-hand side) but the footage was filmed in Poland (where they still drive on the right, just like in America and in some other countries that, for some bizarre reason, still insist on driving on the wrong side of the road).