glen quagmire
Well-Known Member
LongsightM13 said:
Exactly.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
ian tomlinson
- Thread starter feedthegoat2007
- Start date
Exactly.
Skashion
Well-Known Member
Elections in the judicial system...I'll pass on that one.
LongsightM13
Well-Known Member
Why not? In America, senior judges are elected. As are police commissioners and even sheriffs.Skashion said:Elections in the judicial system...I'll pass on that one.
And look at the sentences serious criminals get over there, compared to the joke of English criminal sentencing?
In England, by comparison, judges cannot be sacked or forced out of office once appointed, no matter how corrupt, senile or out of touch with the demands of justice and the public they are. It is a system which breeds complacency and corruption
Joycee Banercheck
Well-Known Member
I agree. It would have been 40.bluwes said:glen quagmire said:If it was the other way around, Ian would've been banged up for 30 years. Absolute disgrace,
raoul moat must be spinning in his grave
Rubbish
Sousveillance is the way forward. We're watching you watching us.
Skashion
Well-Known Member
America is a country I really do not want to emulate but then I'm a wishy washy liberal lefty.LongsightM13 said:Why not? In America, senior judges are elected. As are police commissioners and even sheriffs.Skashion said:Elections in the judicial system...I'll pass on that one.
And look at the sentences serious criminals get over there, compared to the joke of English criminal sentencing?
In England, by comparison, judges cannot be sacked or forced out of office once appointed, no matter how corrupt, senile or out of touch with the demands of justice and the public they are. It is a system which breeds complacency and corruption
I think the verdict is a fair one, It is a tragedy the guy lost his life and maybe the force used was excessive but you can see in the footage he was deliberately walking in front of the police line to wind them up when they were trying to clear the area, he wasn't an innocent bystander like some claim he was, for me he was trying to provoke the police into attacking to get the video footage and it went badly wrong for him.
I will repeat for those who can't read first time, the guy did NOT deserve to die but when you put yourself in front of an advancing line of riot poilice in a conflict situation the chances are you will be seriously injured.
I will repeat for those who can't read first time, the guy did NOT deserve to die but when you put yourself in front of an advancing line of riot poilice in a conflict situation the chances are you will be seriously injured.
persvenality cult
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 May 2008
- Messages
- 2,855
a balls up. once again justice is not seen to be done. the very least the public and his family deserve is to have their case heard, for all the details to be placed on the public record.
they couldn't run with the assault charge because there is a 6 month limitation on that type of crime. so the question is, why did it take 18 months to decide that the medical evidence wasn't strong enough? why did they have to summon dozens of experts before proceeding with the charge? it doesn't usually work that way when a citizen is charged. they surely have a duty to proceed as quickly as possible, delays obviously prevent justice from being done.
the other possible charges were 'misconduct in public office' and 'actual bodily harm'. the reason given for not proceeding with these charges is that they decided they couldn't prove his death was a direct result of the assault. there is a bit of double-talk going on here, anyone can see that isn't a good enough answer. to me it's got nothing to do with it, unless I have misunderstood the law completely, you can be charged with both of those crimes without having caused someone's death. it would be enough to prove that his internal injuries were caused by the assault.
I don't think 'conflict situation' is a term I understand. It was a public order situation.
this isn't a verdict. no case will be heard. the CPS are not part of the judiciary. the accusation here is that by delaying and making such a controversial decision, they have effectively acted as the judge in this case. it makes a nonsense out of our institutions. the CPS have grown far too big for their boots and must not prevent important cases from being properly heard.
they couldn't run with the assault charge because there is a 6 month limitation on that type of crime. so the question is, why did it take 18 months to decide that the medical evidence wasn't strong enough? why did they have to summon dozens of experts before proceeding with the charge? it doesn't usually work that way when a citizen is charged. they surely have a duty to proceed as quickly as possible, delays obviously prevent justice from being done.
the other possible charges were 'misconduct in public office' and 'actual bodily harm'. the reason given for not proceeding with these charges is that they decided they couldn't prove his death was a direct result of the assault. there is a bit of double-talk going on here, anyone can see that isn't a good enough answer. to me it's got nothing to do with it, unless I have misunderstood the law completely, you can be charged with both of those crimes without having caused someone's death. it would be enough to prove that his internal injuries were caused by the assault.
kiam06 said:I think the verdict is a fair one, It is a tragedy the guy lost his life and maybe the force used was excessive but you can see in the footage he was deliberately walking in front of the police line to wind them up when they were trying to clear the area, he wasn't an innocent bystander like some claim he was, for me he was trying to provoke the police into attacking to get the video footage and it went badly wrong for him.
I will repeat for those who can't read first time, the guy did NOT deserve to die but when you put yourself in front of an advancing line of riot poilice in a conflict situation the chances are you will be seriously injured.
I don't think 'conflict situation' is a term I understand. It was a public order situation.
this isn't a verdict. no case will be heard. the CPS are not part of the judiciary. the accusation here is that by delaying and making such a controversial decision, they have effectively acted as the judge in this case. it makes a nonsense out of our institutions. the CPS have grown far too big for their boots and must not prevent important cases from being properly heard.
bluwes
Well-Known Member
glen quagmire said:LongsightM13 said:Bluewes, this man behaved worse than any animal. So if the word 'pig' offends you so much, feel free to substitute 'murderer' instead
Exactly.
The standard of evidence in a criminal court in this country is " Beyond ALL reasonable doubt". There is no way on gods green earth that officer would have been convicted. there fore he is not and never will be classed as a murderer.
And no I don't like the word PIG it is offensive
So what we all saw(not on the 'official surveillance cameras which seem to have been switched off???) was actually, in your view, reasonable behaviour ? The verdict was entirely predictable,the CPS and the MET are far too cosy to bother about justice. The 'conflict situation' is just a glib phrase,designed to make the situation seem as though the police were in fear of their safety. Too many witnesses,too many cameras for this to have credibility.When an autopsy result is blatantly fixed,the country is no longer pretending to be a democracykiam06 said:I think the verdict is a fair one, It is a tragedy the guy lost his life and maybe the force used was excessive but you can see in the footage he was deliberately walking in front of the police line to wind them up when they were trying to clear the area, he wasn't an innocent bystander like some claim he was, for me he was trying to provoke the police into attacking to get the video footage and it went badly wrong for him.
I will repeat for those who can't read first time, the guy did NOT deserve to die but when you put yourself in front of an advancing line of riot poilice in a conflict situation the chances are you will be seriously injured.
tueartsboots
Well-Known Member
so what you are saying Mr Tomlinson was bound to have a heart attack that day regardless? agreed on pig being offensive, bloody filthbluwes said:glen quagmire said:Exactly.
The standard of evidence in a criminal court in this country is " Beyond ALL reasonable doubt". There is no way on gods green earth that officer would have been convicted. there fore he is not and never will be classed as a murderer.
And no I don't like the word PIG it is offensive