What happened: Death of Jean Charles de Menezes

If you have a life outside of BWFC, then this is the place to tell us all about your toilet habits, and those bizarre fetishes.......

Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em

Lord Kangana
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 15355
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:42 pm
Location: Vagantes numquam erramus

Post by Lord Kangana » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:50 am

hoboh2o wrote:
Lord Kangana wrote:We're about to disagree on a whole host of levels here Hobo. Suspicion of anything is not enough to prove anything, and indeed act. And, god forbid, you're putting the walking smile Ms Booth on my side, then I s'pose my enemies enemy is my friend.
Your Lordship when the security and well being of the people of this country is at stake then its more than enough!
Better a person gets deported alive than shot dead in a tube station or if he does not better he is deported than 60 people are blown up!
It really is a no brainer! IMO of corse :wink:

That bit always troubles me as an excuse for action, patriotism being the last refuge of...well I'm not going to start calling you names Hobo, but I've always been with Pastor Niemoller on this one, we have to retain our perspective and our humanity. A few guys acting as they did is not enough to condemn an entire race, creed, colour or religion, contrary to what people might think. I'm willing to run the miniscule chance of a terrorist act if it retains our basic freedoms.
You can judge the whole world on the sparkle that you think it lacks.
Yes, you can stare into the abyss, but it's staring right back.

Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 20868
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Post by Prufrock » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:57 am

hoboh2o wrote:What really troubles me is the Met Police shoot dead more people than any other force every year yet no one seems to be held to account!
Yes it is a stressfull spur of the min action, but chuffin hell you cannot bring folk back and just say "oh sorry we made a mistake"
Anyone who calls for ALL our police to be armed should bere this in mind.
If the goverment was able to deport suspected terrorists without Mrs blair and her money grabbing cronies objecting on human rights issues we may not be facing the problems we are now.
The Law and judges if mummy will forgive this are not places for these people to hide behind, mere suspision should be enough to deport.
If folk don't like our country then they should not come, I ain't in any way rasist if I lived in Spain or India or wereever then I would obey their laws and try to intergrate
Religion is a persons own personal belief not something to be inflicted upon others!
I don't think i've ever read anyhting ive disagreed with more? Deport them where? In the cases of 7/7 you are talking about people born here. Where would you suggest we 'send them'? Mere suspision should be enough?! Are you being serious, what if i went to the police and said i think hoboh is a terrorist, surely then they would have to deport you (somewhere). I wouldnt need any proof only suspicion. If you arent a racist as you say, how many times have you heard idiot bigots shout 'terrorist' or any other racial bollocks that implies the colour of somebody's skin is a mitigating factor in determining if they are a terrorist or not? By that reckoning these isiots would only have to lay suspicion at the door of the police and then there'd be nobody non-white in the country, is that a step you'd advocate to protect 'us'? "If folk don't like our country they should not come?" come from where? These were british citizens.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 20868
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Post by Prufrock » Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:01 am

hoboh2o wrote:
Lord Kangana wrote:We're about to disagree on a whole host of levels here Hobo. Suspicion of anything is not enough to prove anything, and indeed act. And, god forbid, you're putting the walking smile Ms Booth on my side, then I s'pose my enemies enemy is my friend.
Your Lordship when the security and well being of the people of this country is at stake then its more than enough!
Better a person gets deported alive than shot dead in a tube station or if he does not better he is deported than 60 people are blown up!
It really is a no brainer! IMO of corse :wink:
The vast majority of people who could be classed as suspects in this sort of thing (the vast majority of whom turn out to be a hundred per cent innocent) are 'people of this country'. Their safety and security is just as important as yours or mine up to the point they are guilty in the eyes of the law. Some of the fundamental building blocks of this country you want to protect are the ideas of innocence until proven guilty, human rights, habeas corpus. Could it be suggested it is in fact you who is not accepting 'our way of life'?
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12906
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Post by Hoboh » Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:19 am

Oh for cryin out loud just put um in a rusty old tub bucket in the middle of the atlanticd and use it for torpedo practise for the navy then! :wink:

Seriously the flamin' human rights act is slowly but surely ruining this country! Our goverment has a duty to protect UK citizens from whreever the threat comes from, aint that what you expect?
If the threat is internal from people like radical Muslim preachers spouting hatred to all things we stand for is it right they can hide behind a european human rights act?
If British nationals born here love islamic ways so much they try to impose them on a predominatly Christian country, should they be allowed to do so with FULL protecrtion of the law? Or should we give them a ticket to where they spiritually feel they belong?
The poor sod on the tube got shot because of this

Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12906
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Post by Hoboh » Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:26 am

Prufrock wrote:
hoboh2o wrote:What really troubles me is the Met Police shoot dead more people than any other force every year yet no one seems to be held to account!
Yes it is a stressfull spur of the min action, but chuffin hell you cannot bring folk back and just say "oh sorry we made a mistake"
Anyone who calls for ALL our police to be armed should bere this in mind.
If the goverment was able to deport suspected terrorists without Mrs blair and her money grabbing cronies objecting on human rights issues we may not be facing the problems we are now.
The Law and judges if mummy will forgive this are not places for these people to hide behind, mere suspision should be enough to deport.
If folk don't like our country then they should not come, I ain't in any way rasist if I lived in Spain or India or wereever then I would obey their laws and try to intergrate
Religion is a persons own personal belief not something to be inflicted upon others!
I don't think i've ever read anyhting ive disagreed with more? Deport them where? In the cases of 7/7 you are talking about people born here. Where would you suggest we 'send them'? Mere suspision should be enough?! Are you being serious, what if i went to the police and said i think hoboh is a terrorist, surely then they would have to deport you (somewhere). I wouldnt need any proof only suspicion. If you arent a racist as you say, how many times have you heard idiot bigots shout 'terrorist' or any other racial bollocks that implies the colour of somebody's skin is a mitigating factor in determining if they are a terrorist or not? By that reckoning these isiots would only have to lay suspicion at the door of the police and then there'd be nobody non-white in the country, is that a step you'd advocate to protect 'us'? "If folk don't like our country they should not come?" come from where? These were british citizens.
Its nowt to do with a persons colour at all!!
If people think they have a right to "have a go" and undermine a countrys predominant religous beleifs then they are a threat to that countrys stability.
I do not mind what someones belives in but it it is a private thing between them and their god orwhatever, some of my friends are Hindus and I am facinated by their religion and they love to talk about it BUT THEY DO NOT TRY TO IMPOSE IT ON ME! mORE PEOPLE HAVE DIED IN THE NAME OF RELIGION THAN FROM ANY OTHER CAUSE!

Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 20868
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Post by Prufrock » Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:32 am

hoboh2o wrote:Oh for cryin out loud just put um in a rusty old tub bucket in the middle of the atlanticd and use it for torpedo practise for the navy then! :wink:

Seriously the flamin' human rights act is slowly but surely ruining this country! Our goverment has a duty to protect UK citizens from whreever the threat comes from, aint that what you expect?
If the threat is internal from people like radical Muslim preachers spouting hatred to all things we stand for is it right they can hide behind a european human rights act?
If British nationals born here love islamic ways so much they try to impose them on a predominatly Christian country, should they be allowed to do so with FULL protecrtion of the law? Or should we give them a ticket to where they spiritually feel they belong?
The poor sod on the tube got shot because of this
predominantly christian country? really?

A lot of these people who would be deported under your new rules are british citizens. The government has just as much responsibilty to protect them as it does you or I. Some of the people killed in the 7/7 attacks were Muslim. They are just as much victims as the caucasian people killed. If foreign nationals are found guilty according to the legal system , they will be deported. If british citizens are found guilty, they will pay the penalty ascribed by law. You cannot however start sending people who have a legal right to be here to countries they arent even from just because there are 'suspisions'.

For your final point. It depends how you define 'impose'. If people legally here, who adhere to the rules of this country, want to practise their own religion, whatever it may be, they are allowed to. That is a fundamental principle of freedom. If they try to brainwash and indoctrinate people to break laws, they will be punished. There are people born in britain, who have grown up in britain who beleive in islam. They feel their home is here, and it is. They have every right to practise that.

There is no human rights act that protects people preaching hatred and terrorism. What any human rights act, what any basic principle of freedom demands however, is it that people are convicted of actually breaking laws before any punishment is doled out.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12906
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Post by Hoboh » Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:36 am

I think maybe I ain't putting it across right, no minority has the right to affect or kill people from the majority.
What is mor important to you guys? the protection of one mans rights or the protection of 1,000,000 guys rights?
think about it!

Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 20868
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Post by Prufrock » Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:38 am

Terrorists seek to create fear and divides. It is in these circumstances that they thrive. No law abiding Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Christian, Atheist, Agnostic, or anyone of any faith colour or creed wants to see innocent people killed. If people want to fight against the terrorists, if they want to stand up for what this country is, a place of democracy, freedom and equality, stands for, then they should show some fecking solidarity, and not allow terrorism to create divides in society based on arbitrary differences.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12906
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Post by Hoboh » Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:40 am

Prufrock wrote:
hoboh2o wrote:Oh for cryin out loud just put um in a rusty old tub bucket in the middle of the atlanticd and use it for torpedo practise for the navy then! :wink:

Seriously the flamin' human rights act is slowly but surely ruining this country! Our goverment has a duty to protect UK citizens from whreever the threat comes from, aint that what you expect?
If the threat is internal from people like radical Muslim preachers spouting hatred to all things we stand for is it right they can hide behind a european human rights act?
If British nationals born here love islamic ways so much they try to impose them on a predominatly Christian country, should they be allowed to do so with FULL protecrtion of the law? Or should we give them a ticket to where they spiritually feel they belong?
The poor sod on the tube got shot because of this
predominantly christian country? really?

A lot of these people who would be deported under your new rules are british citizens. The government has just as much responsibilty to protect them as it does you or I. Some of the people killed in the 7/7 attacks were Muslim. They are just as much victims as the caucasian people killed. If foreign nationals are found guilty according to the legal system , they will be deported. If british citizens are found guilty, they will pay the penalty ascribed by law. You cannot however start sending people who have a legal right to be here to countries they arent even from just because there are 'suspisions'.

For your final point. It depends how you define 'impose'. If people legally here, who adhere to the rules of this country, want to practise their own religion, whatever it may be, they are allowed to. That is a fundamental principle of freedom. If they try to brainwash and indoctrinate people to break laws, they will be punished. There are people born in britain, who have grown up in britain who beleive in islam. They feel their home is here, and it is. They have every right to practise that.

There is no human rights act that protects people preaching hatred and terrorism. What any human rights act, what any basic principle of freedom demands however, is it that people are convicted of actually breaking laws before any punishment is doled out.
No they won't and no they don't there is more than enough evidence knocking abot to refute this!

Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12906
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Post by Hoboh » Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:43 am

Prufrock wrote:Terrorists seek to create fear and divides. It is in these circumstances that they thrive. No law abiding Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Christian, Atheist, Agnostic, or anyone of any faith colour or creed wants to see innocent people killed. If people want to fight against the terrorists, if they want to stand up for what this country is, a place of democracy, freedom and equality, stands for, then they should show some fecking solidarity, and not allow terrorism to create divides in society based on arbitrary differences.
:pray: :pray: Amen to that!!

Why are there so many calls for the majority of muslims to stand up to extremeists if there is not a problem?

Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 20868
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Post by Prufrock » Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:43 am

hoboh2o wrote:I think maybe I ain't putting it across right, no minority has the right to affect or kill people from the majority.
What is mor important to you guys? the protection of one mans rights or the protection of 1,000,000 guys rights?
think about it!
What is important is the protction of each and every citizen's rights (or subject to placate LK :mrgreen: ). If when you talk about this minority you mean terrorists and preachers of religious hatred, then no, they do not have the right to affect or kill ANYONE. Before any action can be taken however they must be found guilty according to law of being terrorists or preachers of religious hatred. Then they must pay the penalty ascribed by law. In much the same way no-body has the right to steal a loaf of bread. Before they are punished however, they must be proven to have actually stolen the loaf of bread.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12906
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Post by Hoboh » Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:44 am

Prufrock wrote:
hoboh2o wrote:I think maybe I ain't putting it across right, no minority has the right to affect or kill people from the majority.
What is mor important to you guys? the protection of one mans rights or the protection of 1,000,000 guys rights?
think about it!
What is important is the protction of each and every citizen's rights (or subject to placate LK :mrgreen: ). If when you talk about this minority you mean terrorists and preachers of religious hatred, then no, they do not have the right to affect or kill ANYONE. Before any action can be taken however they must be found guilty according to law of being terrorists or preachers of religious hatred. Then they must pay the penalty ascribed by law. In much the same way no-body has the right to steal a loaf of bread. Before they are punished however, they must be proven to have actually stolen the loaf of bread.
LOL that would be so funny if they did not hide behind the human rights act and sod all can be done with them!

Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 20868
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Post by Prufrock » Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:48 am

hoboh2o wrote:
Prufrock wrote:Terrorists seek to create fear and divides. It is in these circumstances that they thrive. No law abiding Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Christian, Atheist, Agnostic, or anyone of any faith colour or creed wants to see innocent people killed. If people want to fight against the terrorists, if they want to stand up for what this country is, a place of democracy, freedom and equality, stands for, then they should show some fecking solidarity, and not allow terrorism to create divides in society based on arbitrary differences.
:pray: :pray: Amen to that!!

Why are there so many calls for the majority of muslims to stand up to extremeists if there is not a problem?
No one is denying there is a problem. The problem however cannot be solved by reactionary, anti constitutional, frankly racist suggestions of mass deportations of people who are british citizens. Where do you suggest we send them? Pakistan? Why should they have to deal with British nationals who have commited terrorism? Terrorist groups are by and large stateless. Those british people who join them and break laws will be punished according to british law.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 20868
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Post by Prufrock » Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:50 am

hoboh2o wrote:
Prufrock wrote:
hoboh2o wrote:I think maybe I ain't putting it across right, no minority has the right to affect or kill people from the majority.
What is mor important to you guys? the protection of one mans rights or the protection of 1,000,000 guys rights?
think about it!
What is important is the protction of each and every citizen's rights (or subject to placate LK :mrgreen: ). If when you talk about this minority you mean terrorists and preachers of religious hatred, then no, they do not have the right to affect or kill ANYONE. Before any action can be taken however they must be found guilty according to law of being terrorists or preachers of religious hatred. Then they must pay the penalty ascribed by law. In much the same way no-body has the right to steal a loaf of bread. Before they are punished however, they must be proven to have actually stolen the loaf of bread.
LOL that would be so funny if they did not hide behind the human rights act and sod all can be done with them!
Find me an example of somebody who has been found guilty of terrorism but no punishment has been taken because of a breach of their human rights? Find me a human rights act that this country has signed which makes provisions for the himan right to be a terrorist?
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

William the White
Legend
Legend
Posts: 8454
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:43 pm
Location: Trotter Shop

Post by William the White » Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:52 am

hoboh2o wrote:
Prufrock wrote:
hoboh2o wrote:I think maybe I ain't putting it across right, no minority has the right to affect or kill people from the majority.
What is mor important to you guys? the protection of one mans rights or the protection of 1,000,000 guys rights?
think about it!
What is important is the protction of each and every citizen's rights (or subject to placate LK :mrgreen: ). If when you talk about this minority you mean terrorists and preachers of religious hatred, then no, they do not have the right to affect or kill ANYONE. Before any action can be taken however they must be found guilty according to law of being terrorists or preachers of religious hatred. Then they must pay the penalty ascribed by law. In much the same way no-body has the right to steal a loaf of bread. Before they are punished however, they must be proven to have actually stolen the loaf of bread.
LOL that would be so funny if they did not hide behind the human rights act and sod all can be done with them!
which bits of the international declaration of human rights do you disagree with, hoboh?

this was agreed by the united nations after the horrors of nazism and acts as a law that enables, for instance, the trials, at the hague, of ethnic cleansers/murderers/racist killers...

it is, theoretically, applicable worldwide, though, alas, in practice less so. But I am very happy that such a bold assertion of the rights of human beings should be integrated into our laws...

which rights do you think should be withdrawn, and why?

mummywhycantieatcrayons
Legend
Legend
Posts: 7192
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: London

Post by mummywhycantieatcrayons » Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:12 am

Well I haven't got the time or the patience to grapple with Hobo's bizarre slide into an outstanding display of ignorance on a few wider issues.

Anyway, the front page of the Times today reads: 'De Menezes jury condemns police'. It is imortant to note that this is the overall conclusion of the inquest.
William the White wrote:Again - non polemically - it makes me uncomfortable that the coroner did not allow the jury to take this decision.
I'm not sure why it makes you feel uncomfortable - the decision could never be theirs to make. Juries aren't given free rein to decide whatever the hell they like. As laypeople, they're not in a position to make legal judgment - that's always the role of professional judges giving their directions. The jury is there essentially as a fact-finding machine.

As Prufrock hinted at a while back, if juries were given complete freedom over these matters, it would be very difficult for them to deal properly with the appeals of an emotional family, for example.
Prufrock wrote:The first thing that came to mind, although not being a lawyer man, this might be bollicks, was that perhaps it is because the case has been so publicised, and the coroner felt there has been a lot of misinformation in the news and the newspapers which could sway the jury to a vote which wasn't based purely on the evidence at the hearing? PB?
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families

Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12906
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Post by Hoboh » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:09 pm

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:Well I haven't got the time or the patience to grapple with Hobo's bizarre slide into an outstanding display of ignorance on a few wider issues.

Anyway, the front page of the Times today reads: 'De Menezes jury condemns police'. It is imortant to note that this is the overall conclusion of the inquest.
William the White wrote:Again - non polemically - it makes me uncomfortable that the coroner did not allow the jury to take this decision.
I'm not sure why it makes you feel uncomfortable - the decision could never be theirs to make. Juries aren't given free rein to decide whatever the hell they like. As laypeople, they're not in a position to make legal judgment - that's always the role of professional judges giving their directions. The jury is there essentially as a fact-finding machine.

As Prufrock hinted at a while back, if juries were given complete freedom over these matters, it would be very difficult for them to deal properly with the appeals of an emotional family, for example.
Prufrock wrote:The first thing that came to mind, although not being a lawyer man, this might be bollicks, was that perhaps it is because the case has been so publicised, and the coroner felt there has been a lot of misinformation in the news and the newspapers which could sway the jury to a vote which wasn't based purely on the evidence at the hearing? PB?
I'm bizarre? really, and theres me thinking jury's (of which I have sat on two) where there as the judge said on both occasions to decide the verdict based upon "facts and evidence" presented to us! We had to decide which of the "facts and evidence" we believed to be true! The biggest thing pushed at us both times was the need not to be emotional nor consider our own personal, gut reactions but work with what we had been given and TBH neither case was easy and took quite a long time to work through.

I have no objection to Mosques nor temples or synagoges or whatever, nor to people settling in this country following our laws and intergrating with sociaty. I am saying that people from oversea or home grown, hell bent on destroying our way of life should be dealt with in a ruthless efficient way.

People quote the shining light of the human rights act regular ok lets look at examples then

Hijackers take over a foreign plane land at a UK airport, already having commited crimes against their own country by their actions so some smart ass lawyers block atempts to send them back to face whatever justice they would be dealt because we would be infringing their Human rights! instead we have to pay to bang them up and for the upkeep of their famileys.

Preachers spout off in places of worship praising terror acts and encourageing others to follow, we pay them state handouts, have tapes and records of these sermons do we deport them? no! Why? because they are wanted in other coountrys after being connected to other acts and we are infringing their human rights by sending them back to a country whose justice system works differently to ours.

We have schools across the country where the teaching is aimed at the destruction of our way of life, encouraging youths to join up and fight the way of life both we and they live in. these places are known to the authorities, do we close them down and send the teachers and youths who may be UK born away to the place and life style they so crave to be a part off do we hell because of human rights it would never get by any court.

If you think these views make me racist then I 'm sorry but you totally misunderstand i'd have no problems banning or locking up BNP activists either.

communistworkethic
Legend
Legend
Posts: 7404
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 9:08 pm
Location: in your wife's dreams
Contact:

Post by communistworkethic » Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:35 pm

express or mail, hoboh2o?
power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely

kevin nolan is so fat, that when he sits around the house he sits around the house

William the White
Legend
Legend
Posts: 8454
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:43 pm
Location: Trotter Shop

Post by William the White » Sun Dec 14, 2008 12:19 am

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:Well I haven't got the time or the patience to grapple with Hobo's bizarre slide into an outstanding display of ignorance on a few wider issues.

Anyway, the front page of the Times today reads: 'De Menezes jury condemns police'. It is imortant to note that this is the overall conclusion of the inquest.
William the White wrote:Again - non polemically - it makes me uncomfortable that the coroner did not allow the jury to take this decision.
I'm not sure why it makes you feel uncomfortable - the decision could never be theirs to make. Juries aren't given free rein to decide whatever the hell they like. As laypeople, they're not in a position to make legal judgment - that's always the role of professional judges giving their directions. The jury is there essentially as a fact-finding machine.
As Prufrock hinted at a while back, if juries were given complete freedom over these matters, it would be very difficult for them to deal properly with the appeals of an emotional family, for example.
Prufrock wrote:The first thing that came to mind, although not being a lawyer man, this might be bollicks, was that perhaps it is because the case has been so publicised, and the coroner felt there has been a lot of misinformation in the news and the newspapers which could sway the jury to a vote which wasn't based purely on the evidence at the hearing? PB?
My objection - and why I'm uncomfortable - is that i think the jury should have been allowed to consider the decision of 'unlawful killing'. 'never' theirs to make? Only the coroner decided that. I'm not an eccentric here - plenty of others are uncomfortable. Guardian editorial today, for instance.

Also, isn't there a difference between a coroner's jury, and a criminal trial jury? In this sense - the verdict of a coroner's jury is not 'guilty or not guilty', on a 'beyond reasonable doubt' test. Rather they are expected to exercise judgement. This coroner, in effect, even denied the jury the option of a narrative verdict, which is certainly not available in a criminal court. So, in a coroner's court they are not 'simply' a fact finding machine. They work under a different burden of 'proof' - their job is to offer an explanation of a death. I am uncomfortable because the coroner refused then two options of such an explanation.

in any case, as you recognise, they expresed their own discomfort, by showing they simply did not believe the police account. Yet, it seems, nothing will happen to police officers a jury thought told lies. The front page of the guardian says they will return to front line duties. I find this barely credible. And the parents of the victim must be spinning in a torture of disbelief and grief...

Lord Kangana
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 15355
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:42 pm
Location: Vagantes numquam erramus

Post by Lord Kangana » Sun Dec 14, 2008 12:28 am

They're just playing the political game William, I'd even suspect there are those in the government who were happy to hear the news from Afghanistan today because it pushes this conveniently off the agenda. We live in very worrying times for social justice (any form of real justice?) and our rulers appear hell bent on making the world a whole lot greyer and slightly less tolerable for the majority.
You can judge the whole world on the sparkle that you think it lacks.
Yes, you can stare into the abyss, but it's staring right back.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LeverEnd and 18 guests