Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Well said Neville.

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

17 minutes ago, Smallthorne Dog said:

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.

then in todays modern environment, the law needs to be more flexible,  as Charlie said the laws a ass, 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
then in todays modern environment, the law needs to be more flexible,  as Charlie said the laws a ass, 
When you say "the law needs to be more flexible" I'm presuming you mean changing the burden of proof?
From beyond reasonable doubt to on the balance of probability?
Then we can expect a lot more miscarriages of justice. Personally I would rather someone who probably committed a murder getting put away for manslaughter than an innocent person getting banged up for 20 years on the basis that limited evidence suggested they were more likely than not to have done it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours 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...

We have terror laws.... often misused by police.

Why are the "blue light" services any different than other services?

If we do go that rout surely sentencing for blue lights service members who commit crimes should be a lot higher than lesser mortals, because they should know the law..... so a police officer caught speeding would get double/quadruple the normal sentence instead of half or less?

A nurse or doctor who makes a mistake with medication should automatically be charged with murder?..... with an automatic natural life sentence.

If you don't have equality under the law you have no equality at all.

How many police officers were charged in the Hillsborough disaster? How many were charged regarding the grooming gangs failure? Any murder/manslaughter charges 're the Bradford fire? How many police officers have been charged due to deaths in custody?  Firefighters Grenfell fire?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing people seem to forget about the law is...... you are innocent until proven guilty..... you are never proven innocent...... a not guilty verdict does not mean you are proven innocent..... it means you have not been proven guilty.

Perhaps a better verdict would be either...... proven guilty..... or.... not proven guilty.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Smallthorne Dog said:

When you say "the law needs to be more flexible" I'm presuming you mean changing the burden of proof?
From beyond reasonable doubt to on the balance of probability?
Then we can expect a lot more miscarriages of justice. Personally I would rather someone who probably committed a murder getting put away for manslaughter than an innocent person getting banged up for 20 years on the basis that limited evidence suggested they were more likely than not to have done it.

no i mean by flexible no hard and fixed sentences that have to be followed, in this case they broke in and stole the quad bike, thats burglary and thats up to 6yrs, or up to 13yrs if they were armed...and judges must follow the guidelines, unless it is in the interests of justice to depart from them. 

manslaughter maximum sentence is imprisonment for life, but the judge can impose other lesser sentences...even down to community service.

i don't know if it was a single judge in this case but perhaps major cases 3 would be better...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that two million EU citizens have been granted permanent residence in the UK. Good on them. We have lived/worked in NL and paid our tax for 30 years. Own our own gaffe no mortgage. Brought the kids up here. Sent them through the normal Dutch education system. All of us are fluent in Dutch.

We have to go to the Hague and get our fingerprints taken to get a card that will allow us to stay working, and living in our own house, for ten years.  

And we got no vote on it!

Can you imagine the outrage there would be if, in the UK, EU citizens were required to travel to London. To have their fingerprints taken. And  pay for the privilege.

But we have no choice. Appointment booked with the alien police. What fun.

Edited by toyahw
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Andyregs said:

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

 

9 hours ago, Davebrad said:

2 pleaded guilty of manslaughter, and 1 not guilty...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/pc-andrew-harper-death-verdict-cleared-murder-manslaughter-a9636001.html
 

I know but it was a murder case, and they were found not guilty of murder and guilty (whether pleaded or found guilty). 

9 hours ago, Davebrad said:

no i mean by flexible no hard and fixed sentences that have to be followed, in this case they broke in and stole the quad bike, thats burglary and thats up to 6yrs, or up to 13yrs if they were armed...and judges must follow the guidelines, unless it is in the interests of justice to depart from them. 

manslaughter maximum sentence is imprisonment for life, but the judge can impose other lesser sentences...even down to community service.

i don't know if it was a single judge in this case but perhaps major cases 3 would be better...

I’m struggling to understand what you’re saying here. My first thought was you were suggesting that even though they were found not guilty to murder, they cans till be sentenced as though they had been found guilty. But that’s basically ignoring the judgement of a jury and makes the whole foundation of our justice system useless. And who decides which people we overrule the jury for?

However the second sentence suggests there is the flexibility you wanted? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Andyregs said:

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/pc-andrew-harper-death-verdict-cleared-murder-manslaughter-a9636001.html
 

I know but it was a murder case, and they were found not guilty of murder and guilty (whether pleaded or found guilty). 

I’m struggling to understand what you’re saying here. My first thought was you were suggesting that even though they were found not guilty to murder, they cans till be sentenced as though they had been found guilty. But that’s basically ignoring the judgement of a jury and makes the whole foundation of our justice system useless. And who decides which people we overrule the jury for?

However the second sentence suggests there is the flexibility you wanted? 

your right, ignore the post, its me trying to get my head round the sentences,  as i said Burglary is 6yrs max, if armed its 13yrs max. the 999 call said they were armed...manslaughter anything from com-service to life. The judge said "sometimes death may be caused by an act of gross carelessness, sometimes it s very close to a case of murder in its seriousness that is so here" and "their denials that they did not know they were dragging anything behind the car were clearly false"... and yet he gave them 16 and 13yrs to serve  at least 2/3 rds.

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