T W A U ... The Chase...from...
Film, Media & TV4 mins ago
Yet again....
22 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bazwillrun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I have to agree with you bazwillrun.......... yet again it looks like the the punishment will not fit the crime. And people wonder why the streets are not safe. Common sense and the law do not go hand in hand i am afraid. Just recently a relative of mine was injured by a celebrity. This celebrity was able to hire a hot shot lawyer who managed to convince the jury that the celebrity was careless driving instead of the more serious charge of dangerous driving. We , the family of the victim, do not feel that justice was served. But we have to accept. it.
I find this a very disturbing case, but it's fraught with complexities.
Firstly, the boys are NOT free. They're on bail and facing violent disorder offences which will return to trial at the Old Bailey. The judge involved has said that he will give his reasons for bailing them at a later date, which means we may not be in possession of the full facts.
I'm expecting the bulk of it to based around the fact that it will be impossible to prove manslaughter, and if we can't make that stick, then get them on lesser charges that CAN be proved. Not that this doesn't stick in the throat, but it's part and parcel of having a rigorous judicial system.
What I find most disturbing is that these were little boys, aged 10-12, not even teenagers. You have to wonder what kind of dreadful parenting they had.
Firstly, the boys are NOT free. They're on bail and facing violent disorder offences which will return to trial at the Old Bailey. The judge involved has said that he will give his reasons for bailing them at a later date, which means we may not be in possession of the full facts.
I'm expecting the bulk of it to based around the fact that it will be impossible to prove manslaughter, and if we can't make that stick, then get them on lesser charges that CAN be proved. Not that this doesn't stick in the throat, but it's part and parcel of having a rigorous judicial system.
What I find most disturbing is that these were little boys, aged 10-12, not even teenagers. You have to wonder what kind of dreadful parenting they had.
its because of apologists like yourself that we see precisely these sort of problems and people in this country.
and typically when you have no argument you start on things like spelling and grammar.
I learnt the word when i was a kid at school, and unlike these scum, not out throwing half brick size stones at a father playing cricket with his son !
and typically when you have no argument you start on things like spelling and grammar.
I learnt the word when i was a kid at school, and unlike these scum, not out throwing half brick size stones at a father playing cricket with his son !
Oh common sense - how silly of me.
From the faculty of common sense at the university of life?
What you seem to be saying is that you have read (presumably in the press) numerous cases of which you disagree.
Therefore they are wrong and you are right.
And picking up a phrase like "unfit for purpose" doesn't actually substitute for a well thought out argument you know!
You might want to consider that if you are constantly disagreeing with a group of well qualified professionals well aquainted with the facts there is just the remote possibility that they might be right and you might be wrong!
Madness I know but worth considering
From the faculty of common sense at the university of life?
What you seem to be saying is that you have read (presumably in the press) numerous cases of which you disagree.
Therefore they are wrong and you are right.
And picking up a phrase like "unfit for purpose" doesn't actually substitute for a well thought out argument you know!
You might want to consider that if you are constantly disagreeing with a group of well qualified professionals well aquainted with the facts there is just the remote possibility that they might be right and you might be wrong!
Madness I know but worth considering
It would have been a jury in the first case.
No doubt full of common sense just like Baz
The point is that if their actions could not be shown to have caused his heart attack they're not guilty of manslaughter.
That doesn't make them innocent as new born lambs and they're not getting off.
This is about the law - not turning the courts into some sort of "common sense" gameshow where people get tried by some sort of news lead lynch mob
No doubt full of common sense just like Baz
The point is that if their actions could not be shown to have caused his heart attack they're not guilty of manslaughter.
That doesn't make them innocent as new born lambs and they're not getting off.
This is about the law - not turning the courts into some sort of "common sense" gameshow where people get tried by some sort of news lead lynch mob
Quote from Mrs Linda Norton
"I am devestated. They got off on a legal technicality. Even though we know how it all happened and none of that is disputed, the defence said the court cannot prove these boys were directly responsible for my husbands death because he had heart problems. They are now out, before Christmas, which is so upsetting for all of us."
during the original trial, the old Bailey heard medical eveidence that the stress and emotional turmoil caused by the verbal abuse and stone throwing would have made Mr Norton vulnerable to a heart attack.
Legal Technicality, dont you just love that phrase, get out of jail free card for scum !
these trash launched a verbal and physical attack that killed this man, yet a smart ass lawyer has got them off on a technicality, i hope the baarrstard chokes on his xmas dinner
"I am devestated. They got off on a legal technicality. Even though we know how it all happened and none of that is disputed, the defence said the court cannot prove these boys were directly responsible for my husbands death because he had heart problems. They are now out, before Christmas, which is so upsetting for all of us."
during the original trial, the old Bailey heard medical eveidence that the stress and emotional turmoil caused by the verbal abuse and stone throwing would have made Mr Norton vulnerable to a heart attack.
Legal Technicality, dont you just love that phrase, get out of jail free card for scum !
these trash launched a verbal and physical attack that killed this man, yet a smart ass lawyer has got them off on a technicality, i hope the baarrstard chokes on his xmas dinner
"""the judiciary in this country have proven in numerous cases they are not fit for purpose. """
Should we therefor overturn the convictions of Rosemary West, Peter Tobin, Myra Hindley? Or do you just mean the cases where you disagree with the outcome?
"""Because its an appeal court judge he/she has to be right ? """
No, but do you agree there should be an appeals process? If so, who do you suggest make the decision in an appeals process, someone off the street?
"""Being clever has nothing to do with it """
Who do you think the interests of justice are best served by, a clever judge or a stupid judge?
"""right and wrong has more to do with it, as has common sense. """
Who is better at deciding who has done right or wrong, a clever person or a stupid person? Are stupid people, but who are in your mind gifted nonetheless with 'common sense' (obviously lacking in clever people) better at deciding how the law should be applied?
Baz, what do you think those accused here should be convicted of? What evidence is there that they committed these crimes?
Should we therefor overturn the convictions of Rosemary West, Peter Tobin, Myra Hindley? Or do you just mean the cases where you disagree with the outcome?
"""Because its an appeal court judge he/she has to be right ? """
No, but do you agree there should be an appeals process? If so, who do you suggest make the decision in an appeals process, someone off the street?
"""Being clever has nothing to do with it """
Who do you think the interests of justice are best served by, a clever judge or a stupid judge?
"""right and wrong has more to do with it, as has common sense. """
Who is better at deciding who has done right or wrong, a clever person or a stupid person? Are stupid people, but who are in your mind gifted nonetheless with 'common sense' (obviously lacking in clever people) better at deciding how the law should be applied?
Baz, what do you think those accused here should be convicted of? What evidence is there that they committed these crimes?
Latest Posts
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Hezbollah Vows To Continue Resistance...
News8 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
News9 mins ago
