but happens a lotThats crazy and just stupid.
Judiciary/police afraid of social repercussions on a guilty verdict?If they don’t get locked up, they clearly haven’t watched the evidence or they are blind.
The scumbags need locking up for a few years
What? It is a jury who decidesJudiciary/police afraid of social repercussions on a guilty verdict?
If found guilty the judge decides the sentence and maybe under instructions from home office?What? It is a jury who decides
100%.If they don’t get locked up, they clearly haven’t watched the evidence or they are blind.
The scumbags need locking up for a few years
In this case, More likely Tony Hancock.It could be a 12 Angry Men scenario,with a lone Henry Fonda type figure pleading the innocence of these two thugs, vainly trying to convince the rest of the jury that he is right.
( Although thinking about it, Henry Fonda and co. didn't have CCTV to provide irrefutable evidence in 1957).
I never knew that he did a 12 Angry Man type scenario.In this case, More likely Tony Hancock.
Judiciary/police afraid of social repercussions on a guilty verdict?
"A pint? That's an armful!"In this case, More likely Tony Hancock.
Bit like the Matchday thread then?It could be a 12 Angry Men scenario
Bit like the Matchday thread then?
"Angry from Mayfair" likes this post !!Bit like the Matchday thread then?
Per page.Only 12.....?
It could be for a number of reasons. The jury are privy to all the evidence in the case, whilst the public are not.A thought I’ve had that what could be holding up the verdicts, is the charge of assault on the guy in the coffee shop?
From what’s been made public, the CCTV looks a bit grainy, no audio and the coffee shop workers seemed to contradict themselves a bit during testimony.
Presumably if they’re still undecided on that charge, it would be holding up giving the verdicts on the other charges, even if they’d all agreed on those right at the start?
What happened previous to them beating the shit out of police officers shouldn't have any bearing on the case. It's the definition of an open and shut case but, without a doubt, there is some political pressure being applied to this case.A thought I’ve had that what could be holding up the verdicts, is the charge of assault on the guy in the coffee shop?
From what’s been made public, the CCTV looks a bit grainy, no audio and the coffee shop workers seemed to contradict themselves a bit during testimony.
Presumably if they’re still undecided on that charge, it would be holding up giving the verdicts on the other charges, even if they’d all agreed on those right at the start?
Sorry to be pedantic Jim but “ very nearly an armful”, that was the comic genius of TH."A pint? That's an armful!"
What? One of the charges relates to an incident in a coffee shop before they’d had any contact with the police.What happened previous to them beating the shit out of police officers shouldn't have any bearing on the case. It's the definition of an open and shut case but, without a doubt, there is some political pressure being applied to this case.