M
M
mat
Guest
Is that real or someone pissing about?Hamann Pineapple said:
Is that real or someone pissing about?Hamann Pineapple said:
-dabz- said:She claims it happened between 1999 and 2002.
Hamann Pineapple said:Damocles said:Hamann Pineapple said:So the system is flawed when he is found not guilty
No the system works fine, your logic is flawed.
Let's say a guy shoots another guy in the face. Guilty? Let's say that guy is a Policeman and the victim is a terrorist who was about to denote a bomb to that would kill thousands. Still guilty?
Let's say a guy stabs someone whilst trying to rob them. Guilty? Let's then say that the guy stabbed someone as part of a struggle and the other person was a kidnapper who held his kid and had her location on him as part of a bargaining deal. Still guilty?
The justice system has worked for thousands of years because it attempts to get ALL of the facts surrounding the case and put a single incident into context. Colinbellsjockstrap's example is one where he has removed any and all context from the example so there's nothing else to judge them on. That is why somebody is innocent until they get through the justice system - unlike normal people, the justice system will attempt to find all relevant details surrounding a case rather than just what's in front of them and they require proper methodologies and evidence to do it.
The system is flawed because the amount of money the defendant is able to pay for their defence invariably affects the outcome. Getting off on a technicality does not make someone innocent it purely means the defence lawyer was able to circumnavigate the letter of the law.
-dabz- said:Yep, I think Prince Charles had it pushed through somehow.Hamann Pineapple said:urmston said:Senior police, BBC staff, council officials, civil servants and NHS staff are all virtually immune to any accountability and any inquiries into their alleged wrongdoings are virtually guaranteed to be a whitewash.
The establishment always closes ranks to protect its own and royals are about as establishment as you can get.
Didn't they have the law amended last year to grant new privacy for Royals. Coincidence I'm sure.
Well, it's a tempting offer, but that's a sex act I'd have to check out first.Balti said:''royal'' my fucking arse
Of course he should if he's done his time *tiggsywiggsywoo said:If he stood trial, was found guilty, and served time. Would he get his job back as Prince?
But he might have to be prince in another country before he was accepted back here. Malta perhaps.bobmcfc said:Of course he should if he's done his time *tiggsywiggsywoo said:If he stood trial, was found guilty, and served time. Would he get his job back as Prince?
I'm sure Malta would make him a great offerEast Level 2 said:But he might have to be prince in another country before he was accepted back here. Malta perhaps.bobmcfc said:Of course he should if he's done his time *tiggsywiggsywoo said:If he stood trial, was found guilty, and served time. Would he get his job back as Prince?
Damocles said:ColinBellsjockstrap said:Difficult this presumed innocent until found guilty thing...........
Generally, I agree with it but:-
If someone stabs a guy in the street, whilst trying to rob them, in full view of 20 bystanders, is arrested, and goes before the beak, is he "innocent" before a verdict is announced?
He has obviously committed the crime...............
Yes, he is. Nobody is guilty until they have been adjudged as so by our justice system.
Helmet Cole said:I still don't think Prince Andrew should be allowed to play professional football again, either here or in Malta.
Squelch said:In the UK the Royal Family's muzzling of the British media is so tight we never hear a fraction of what is reported abroad. Read this old article in the US Vanity Fair magazine (hardly a scandal sheet) to get a better idea of 'Randy Andy'.
http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/08/prince-andrew-201108