Just keeping you in your place, Cunty when you talk out of your arse. !wink!
No need for you to get all hurt, pet! !wink!
Stephen Lawrence..again
-
Cuntybollocks
- Posts: 378
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Cunty
"Just keeping you in your place"
Oh David you do make me laugh, you really believe your Mr BGAFD. The voice and sole opinion of the O.T forum!! !bow! !laugh!
Oh David you do make me laugh, you really believe your Mr BGAFD. The voice and sole opinion of the O.T forum!! !bow! !laugh!
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Cunty
Dear old Cunty,
A familiar story. You post nonsense. I explain why your posting is nonsense. You have no comeback other than content-free insults. Have you, dear, old Cunty?
Run along now.
!wink!
A familiar story. You post nonsense. I explain why your posting is nonsense. You have no comeback other than content-free insults. Have you, dear, old Cunty?
Run along now.
!wink!
-
max_tranmere
- Posts: 4734
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
David
I've just read what you copied-and-pasted and your own comment beneath it. It points towards the Police cocking it all up. As I said in my post "The Police may have cocked the thing up but they probably cock up 25-50% of things they investigate." Police incompetence doesn't surprise me, I was already aware that one of the officers wasn't aware of the powers he had and was ignorant. The jist of the Macpherson Report points more towards Police uselessness, poor training and so on - the 'institutionalised racism' tag about the Police as a whole came in Macpherson's general summing up and as far as I'm aware was not specific to the case. This didn't stop the media implying that it was however.
-
Cuntybollocks
- Posts: 378
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Cunty
"Run along now"
And again, back to trolling !laugh!
And again, back to trolling !laugh!
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Max
"It points towards the Police cocking it all up. As I said in my post "The Police may have cocked the thing up but they probably cock up 25-50% of things they investigate." "
Quite Max. You say the police "may" have cocked the thing up. The Lawrence inquiry showed that they definitely had cocked the enquiry up, beyond question.
You also state "The 'lack of evidence' thing regarding the Lawrence suspects in the immediate period after the murder may not have meant the Police didn't care, nor may it have meant they were useless, but may have meant they had little power to set the wheels in motion to jail the killers because of this stupid 'lets give the benefit of the doubt to the suspects and let their legal team walk all over us' ethos that exists within our criminal justice system.
This was completely dispelled by the Lawrence inquiry which showed that they were "useless". Secondly, the reports that emerged recently would suggest that the initial police inquiry was not only useless, but that undercover police were used to befriend the Lawrence family to try and find info to smear them.
In addition, the recently published Ellison report states "Evidence of corruption by Det Sgt John Davidson, one of the officers who investigated the Stephen Lawrence murder, " and "Some "material evidence relating to the issue of corruption" could not be located by the Met. The report added: "It is clear that there are significant areas where relevant Metropolitan Police records should exist but cannot be found."
So not only was the initial enquiry pretty useless but one of the reasons suspected for that is John Davidson is thought to have corrupt connections with the gangster father of Norris.
Rather different from the bland spin you are putting on the case, Max with your "oh the police cock up on other cases etc etc."
Quite Max. You say the police "may" have cocked the thing up. The Lawrence inquiry showed that they definitely had cocked the enquiry up, beyond question.
You also state "The 'lack of evidence' thing regarding the Lawrence suspects in the immediate period after the murder may not have meant the Police didn't care, nor may it have meant they were useless, but may have meant they had little power to set the wheels in motion to jail the killers because of this stupid 'lets give the benefit of the doubt to the suspects and let their legal team walk all over us' ethos that exists within our criminal justice system.
This was completely dispelled by the Lawrence inquiry which showed that they were "useless". Secondly, the reports that emerged recently would suggest that the initial police inquiry was not only useless, but that undercover police were used to befriend the Lawrence family to try and find info to smear them.
In addition, the recently published Ellison report states "Evidence of corruption by Det Sgt John Davidson, one of the officers who investigated the Stephen Lawrence murder, " and "Some "material evidence relating to the issue of corruption" could not be located by the Met. The report added: "It is clear that there are significant areas where relevant Metropolitan Police records should exist but cannot be found."
So not only was the initial enquiry pretty useless but one of the reasons suspected for that is John Davidson is thought to have corrupt connections with the gangster father of Norris.
Rather different from the bland spin you are putting on the case, Max with your "oh the police cock up on other cases etc etc."
Re: Stephen Lawrence..again
Justice for the 96
Re: Stephen Lawrence..again
David:
The whole point is that the private prosecution was criminal, not civil. It was doomed to fail, and it did. It led to the end of the double jeopardy rule, which existed for the very good reason that there should be finality if a person is found not guilty of a crime, and if the state does not have sufficient evidence, the suspect should not be brought to court. The Lawrence family were clearly badly advised by Imran Khan and Mike Mansfield, who nonetheless cemented their reputations as right on lawyers. Frankly that is not good enough. If you are foolish enough to bring a case against someone without the evidence and you lose, then you should have to accept the consequences.
The whole point is that the private prosecution was criminal, not civil. It was doomed to fail, and it did. It led to the end of the double jeopardy rule, which existed for the very good reason that there should be finality if a person is found not guilty of a crime, and if the state does not have sufficient evidence, the suspect should not be brought to court. The Lawrence family were clearly badly advised by Imran Khan and Mike Mansfield, who nonetheless cemented their reputations as right on lawyers. Frankly that is not good enough. If you are foolish enough to bring a case against someone without the evidence and you lose, then you should have to accept the consequences.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Robches
This strikes me as nonsense
The CPS etc. will only bring a case if there is a "reasonable" chance of a conviction. The criteria is NOT - this person is bang to rights and certain to be convicted.
The absence of double jeopardy only covers certain serious crimes (including murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, rape, armed robbery, and serious drug crimes) to a retrial, regardless of when committed, with two conditions: the retrial must be approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Court of Appeal must agree to quash the original acquittal due to "new and compelling evidence".
Given the rapid advances of forensic science over the last 20 years or so, together with other scenarios like witness intimidation etc. your attitude, fairly typical for this forum I would have to say, is both irrational and lacking in empathy.
If your mother had been raped and killed, I doubt if you would be queuing to oppose the absence of double jeopardy if new evidence emerged leading to your mother's murderers conviction.
Or maybe you don't give a fuck about anyone else other than yourself?
The CPS etc. will only bring a case if there is a "reasonable" chance of a conviction. The criteria is NOT - this person is bang to rights and certain to be convicted.
The absence of double jeopardy only covers certain serious crimes (including murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, rape, armed robbery, and serious drug crimes) to a retrial, regardless of when committed, with two conditions: the retrial must be approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Court of Appeal must agree to quash the original acquittal due to "new and compelling evidence".
Given the rapid advances of forensic science over the last 20 years or so, together with other scenarios like witness intimidation etc. your attitude, fairly typical for this forum I would have to say, is both irrational and lacking in empathy.
If your mother had been raped and killed, I doubt if you would be queuing to oppose the absence of double jeopardy if new evidence emerged leading to your mother's murderers conviction.
Or maybe you don't give a fuck about anyone else other than yourself?
Re: Stephen Lawrence..again
David:
First, you might care to acknowledge that the failed private prosecution was criminal, not civil.
Second, you might care to acknowledge that the double jeopardy rule existed for 800 years as a check on the state bringing repeated charges on the same crimes. It did not last the 13 years of New Labour, and one of the reasons was to enable a second trial in the Lawrence case, when the first one should not have gone ahead, and would not but for the grandstanding of left wing lawyers such as Imran Khan and Mike Mansfield. I have to question whether they really had the best interests of the Lawrence family at heart, or were more concerned to advance their political agenda.
There, I have managed to compose a post without being gratuitously offensive towards someone who was offensive to me, It is amazing how easy it is. Maybe I am just a rational person?
First, you might care to acknowledge that the failed private prosecution was criminal, not civil.
Second, you might care to acknowledge that the double jeopardy rule existed for 800 years as a check on the state bringing repeated charges on the same crimes. It did not last the 13 years of New Labour, and one of the reasons was to enable a second trial in the Lawrence case, when the first one should not have gone ahead, and would not but for the grandstanding of left wing lawyers such as Imran Khan and Mike Mansfield. I have to question whether they really had the best interests of the Lawrence family at heart, or were more concerned to advance their political agenda.
There, I have managed to compose a post without being gratuitously offensive towards someone who was offensive to me, It is amazing how easy it is. Maybe I am just a rational person?