Jump to content

Beyond Brexit - A new dawn? A leap of faith?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There's a difference between not accepting the result and not agreeing with the result.  I accepted it would happen but that doesn't make me think it's the right thing to do.  The Brexiteers have been

Grammar.

I hope Brexit is everything that has been promised.  I am long enough in the tooth to realise that the people making those promises have made a career from telling lies without shame. The result

Posted Images

16 hours ago, tommytunstall said:

Yes. Are you saying that al refugees coming across are would be criminals?

 

Obviously not the same side as you, when you read his posts.

It might be better to ask the families of the six people who were murdered what they think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, For Us All said:

It might be better to ask the families of the six people who were murdered what they think?

Do you ever say anything of substance or answer any question? Or should we just take RB’s opinions as your own.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, For Us All said:

It might be better to ask the families of the six people who were murdered what they think?

What a low response. Jeez FUA that was bad... point scoring is one thing but using deaths against people is pretty deplorable.

I'm sure you didnt mean it that way but lets think before we type shall we everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, For Us All said:

It might be better to ask the families of the six people who were murdered what they think?

Why?  Did we ask the families of people killed by Covid what they thought of the government's handling of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, geosname said:

ALL people should be equal under the law.

No exceptions, no special groups, no protected individuals or groups.

except perhaps people who drag someone for about a mile swerving from side to side at 40mph, then laugh about it in court...

but i suppose everyone is innocent till proved guilt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
except perhaps people who drag someone for about a mile swerving from side to side at 40mph, then laugh about it in court...
but i suppose everyone is innocent till proved guilt.
Why shouldn't those individuals be treated equally under the law? You can't make exceptions dependant on the perceived severity or morality of the crime. Or because of the lack of remorse or respect shown by the perpetrators. Otherwise it's a make it up as you go along legal system.
Those individuals were charged with a crime and tried for it. We might not agree that the sentence was correct, but we didn't hear the case, or were party to the full facts. That doesn't mean that we should have trial by newspaper because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Davebrad said:

except perhaps people who drag someone for about a mile swerving from side to side at 40mph, then laugh about it in court...

but i suppose everyone is innocent till proved guilt.

I’m not even sure what point you’re trying to make here? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Smallthorne Dog said:

Why shouldn't those individuals be treated equally under the law? You can't make exceptions dependant on the perceived severity or morality of the crime. Or because of the lack of remorse or respect shown by the perpetrators. Otherwise it's a make it up as you go along legal system.
Those individuals were charged with a crime and tried for it. We might not agree that the sentence was correct, but we didn't hear the case, or were party to the full facts. That doesn't mean that we should have trial by newspaper because of it.

ok fair enough of your first paragraph, as for the second, well a charge of manslaughter be it a plea bargin or not, was off the mark surely, it was committed during a burglary, no we did not hear the case but details were given ie 1mile, 40mph, swerving,  as to not knowing, they would have been looking behind to see if they were being followed, then a jury person was changed part way thru the trial, and police were aware of possible jury intimidation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ok fair enough of your first paragraph, as for the second, well a charge of manslaughter be it a plea bargin or not, was off the mark surely, it was committed during a burglary, no we did not hear the case but details were given ie 1mile, 40mph, swerving,  as to not knowing, they would have been looking behind to see if they were being followed, then a jury person was changed part way thru the trial, and police were aware of possible jury intimidation...
I'm not disagreeing with you that the charge of manslaughter was lenient. However the Crown Prosecution Service,with all the evidence at hand must have believed a conviction for murder would be difficult to achieve.
Nobody knows if the defendants were lying (their demeanor would suggest so) but for a murder charge to stick the prosecution would have to prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that those men knew the policeman was attached to the car, they intended to drag him along and they intended to kill him. Without any material witnesses and with only the evidence of the body and the state it was in and the (probably dubious) word of the defendants, I would challenge you to say how they could possibly convict BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT? I'm sure we've all got reasonable suspicion. But that isn't what the law requires for a conviction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Davebrad said:

ok fair enough of your first paragraph, as for the second, well a charge of manslaughter be it a plea bargin or not, was off the mark surely, it was committed during a burglary, no we did not hear the case but details were given ie 1mile, 40mph, swerving,  as to not knowing, they would have been looking behind to see if they were being followed, then a jury person was changed part way thru the trial, and police were aware of possible jury intimidation...

Thought there was the option of murder but the jury found them not guilty, but guilty of manslaughter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Andyregs said:

I’m not even sure what point you’re trying to make here? 

i was replying to geosnames post, that perhaps a new law to incorporate  acts of terrorism , attacks on  the blue light services in the line of duty, with more emphasise on deterrent...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Davebrad said:

i was replying to geosnames post, that perhaps a new law to incorporate  acts of terrorism , attacks on  the blue light services in the line of duty, with more emphasise on deterrent...

Then it was badly made. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Reporting Posts and Ignoring Users

    Moderators don't read everything. Please don't assume we'll spot rule breaking (e.g. personal abuse) - use the orange report button above a post to alert them.

    If you can't get on with another forum user you can select the "ignore" option. Simply click on the link below, type in their username and save - Click here




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy