Well they too are showing a savage disregard for a victim of a crime, and are causing in their own way others to probably consider whether it's worth coming forward or not.
The Chuckle Brothers have a very interesting take on this.
Do the Chuckle Brothers follow court cases as part of their job?
NW, you are better than this. I'm not talking about any old Tom, Dick, or Harry. These are people who follow court cases as part of their jobs.
This is getting totally ridiculous.
And in case you are a little deaf, I BELIEVE HIM TO BE GUILTY!!!!!
:facepalm:
We need to sit down over a pint and I bet to a pound to a shilling we have exactly the same view on rape and what constitutes rape.
It's getting totally ridiculous because you appear to be wilfully missing my point.
Oh it makes me laugh how you can't get it.
But would we have the same view as Anne Diamond?
I've just found some evidence that Hitler did no wrong. http://nazisweregoodpeople.tumblr.com
It must be true it's on the Internet.
I've just found some evidence that Hitler did no wrong. http://nazisweregoodpeople.tumblr.com
It must be true it's on the Internet.
Well they too are showing a savage disregard for a victim of a crime, and are causing in their own way others to probably consider whether it's worth coming forward or not.
The Chuckle Brothers have a very interesting take on this.
So anyone expressing any other view than that of the prosecution is showing a 'savage disregard for a victim of crime'? It's a good thing those that fought for the rights of the Birmingham Six were not of the same mind. Disgusting post from someone who should know better.
So anyone expressing any other view than that of the prosecution is showing a 'savage disregard for a victim of crime'? It's a good thing those that fought for the rights of the Birmingham Six were not of the same mind. Disgusting post from someone who should know better.
To be fair, NW is usually a top, top poster.
It's not exactly the same, is it.
Given the whole argument being mooted is the girl wasn't that drunk after all... it'd be like suggesting those who were targeted in the Birmingham Pub bombings were asking for it and made the whole thing up.
There is a deeper principal involved here as you well know.
There is certainly room for debate as demonstrated on here. And if you think this is over you are very naive.
The principle of not putting a victim of a crime on trial after the event, yes.
Well I suppose so. I guess this is exactly the kind of debate that the defence team want.
There is always debate and their is always conjecture. The ultimate truth though is that 12 people looked at the evidence in a courtroom and decided he was guilty. I have been on a jury. They are curious affairs but ultimately the system works. They view evidence and they look at the people in the dock.
They form opinions. They are in 99% of circumstances they are right.
Well I suppose so. I guess this is exactly the kind of debate that the defence team want.
There is always debate and their is always conjecture. The ultimate truth though is that 12 people looked at the evidence in a courtroom and decided he was guilty. I have been on a jury. They are curious affairs but ultimately the system works. They view evidence and they look at the people in the dock.
They form opinions. They are in 99% of circumstances they are right.
Who is doing that? You know exactly what I am talking about.
Well I suppose so. I guess this is exactly the kind of debate that the defence team want.
There is always debate and their is always conjecture. The ultimate truth though is that 12 people looked at the evidence in a courtroom and decided he was guilty. I have been on a jury. They are curious affairs but ultimately the system works. They view evidence and they look at the people in the dock.
They form opinions. They are in 99% of circumstances they are right.
Well this thread has some very unsavoury opinions in places, doing exactly that.
So, indeed, do certain newspaper articles.
The fact is that miscarriages of justice happen all the time and sometimes it takes many decades to right those wrongs.
As is yours in my opinion. You are the polar opposite of those who would lynch him and as such, just like them, an enemy of reason
The principle of not putting a victim of a crime on trial after the event, yes.
I'm the polar opposite of those who would lynch him?
Actually, I'll edit that line out.
Agree with this too, but if someone found guilty does have further evidence, not heard in court, then he has a right to appeal.
Hope this doesn't involve the victim back in court, but justice must be seen to be done.
Do they happen all the time, or just sometimes?
If you were to look at all the Criminal Cases dealt with by the courts, I would say the percentage of miscarraiges are very very small. Obviously if you have evidence to the contrary I would be happy to read it.
Just as dangerous, my mistake it's late!
He does.
And wouldn't it have been nice if 'new evidence' had been seen through the court, rather than the defendent dragging up character aspersions through the media.
The victim having to give evidence in court may be traumatic, but is somewhat different to a trial through media.
Do you have evidence to support that view?
Then perhaps when you awake in the morning you'll see the nuance
He does.
And wouldn't it have been nice if 'new evidence' had been seen through the court, rather than the defendent dragging up character aspersions through the media.
The victim having to give evidence in court may be traumatic, but is somewhat different to a trial through media.
Has not the defendant (if eventually proven innocent) endured both?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?