I realise it's a bit hard for you to understand the basic tenant of UK law, because you are so obviously such a perfect law abiding person...
I realise it's a bit hard for you to understand the basic tenant of UK law, because you are so obviously such a perfect law abiding person...
Sponsored Links
T
thatbloke
Yes, it's amazing how 'Smiley' managed to do that...I guess your name isn't Tomlinson then....
Glad you brought Tomlinson up , some would say he got a fair share of media and legal coverage because he was white , some would say others didnt because they were black.
David Emmanuel for instance , somehow managed to stab him self in the heart whilst making a cup of tea during a police raid on his property and died as a result.
Its hardly surprising people are peeved off.
De Menezes, Tomlinson, Smiley Culture, Harry Stanley and now Mark Duggan...
Spot the connecting factor!
Of course if we go back a bit further there was also Blair Peach and Steven Waldorf (who luckily survived) amongst others...
And how many of the Met's finest have been found guilty of any offence in any of these cases?....
You only have to look at the racism within the MET, not too long ago black police men marched in London in protest to the discrimination they are enduring on a day to day basis.
If our own police force practice racial discrimination on its own people what hope have civilians got?
It's you that's struggling with the fact that if you commit a crime, you are guilty of it, irrespective of any Court.I realise it's a bit hard for you to understand the basic tenant of UK law, because you are so obviously such a perfect law abiding person...
L
LooPrEvil
It's you that's struggling with the fact that if you commit a crime, you are guilty of it, irrespective of any Court.I realise it's a bit hard for you to understand the basic tenant of UK law, because you are so obviously such a perfect law abiding person...
Personally, I agree with you both.
ellal is saying you are innocent until proven guilty, and alumni is saying if you have committed the crime you are guilty - both to me are correct statements, but I think what alumni means is that a court may find a guilty party actually innocent, and if the individual is caught on CCTV etc then irrespective of the courts findings the individual is clearly guilty.
Sponsored Links
T
thatbloke
It's you that's struggling with the fact that if you commit a crime, you are guilty of it, irrespective of any Court.I realise it's a bit hard for you to understand the basic tenant of UK law, because you are so obviously such a perfect law abiding person...
Personally, I agree with you both.
ellal is saying you are innocent until proven guilty, and alumni is saying if you have committed the crime you are guilty - both to me are correct statements, but I think what alumni means is that a court may find a guilty party actually innocent, and if the individual is caught on CCTV etc then irrespective of the courts findings the individual is clearly guilty.
The flip side I suppose is when innocent people are presumed guilty until their innocence can be proved , if it can be proved.
Then of course you have the guilty people walking around as if they were innocent and no body even wants to prove their guilt, such as the met officers who murdered the people stated above.
L
LooPrEvil
True, but the key thing to this particular discussion is that if the CCTV provides the evidence, whether the court finds them guilty or not, they remain guilty.
I think we are drifting into the arena of semantics slightly. Innocent and Guilty are terms in the administration of justice, but when we adopt them in common language it becomes confusing.
Innocent until proven guilty just means the court has not declared them guilty, even if it's 100% obvious they did it (on national tv, loads of witnesses etc)
Innocent until proven guilty just means the court has not declared them guilty, even if it's 100% obvious they did it (on national tv, loads of witnesses etc)
L
LooPrEvil
Correct, as stated by others!
T
thatbloke
You also have to take into account exactly what the guilty (or innocent) person is being accused of.
Guilty (or innocent) in the eyes of the law my not necessary be guilty (or innocent) in the eyes of the nation, and vice versa.
Some crimes I am sure can be justified.
Guilty (or innocent) in the eyes of the law my not necessary be guilty (or innocent) in the eyes of the nation, and vice versa.
Some crimes I am sure can be justified.
Have a look at the link below because I think it will set off a whole lot of problems for some parents/parent.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14509902
A lot of the kids looked a bit feral and as much as the parents try they aren't able to control them. So, they get evicted and then have to struggle to get a place to live that they cannot afford. I know scum bags need punishing but should it reflect so badly on the parents.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14509902
A lot of the kids looked a bit feral and as much as the parents try they aren't able to control them. So, they get evicted and then have to struggle to get a place to live that they cannot afford. I know scum bags need punishing but should it reflect so badly on the parents.
utterly POINTLESS
so they become homeless , are Wandsworth residents , go to the local HPU and get given emergency housing that costs more?
What if Mum or Dad are disabled? Mentally ill? do they get kicked onto the streets because of a child whom they may not even know is getting into trouble?
Believe me many parents DO NOT KNOW!
I was trying to think about what may happen if it goes ahead.
I reckon it could be very, very dangerous. Sparking off more riots.
After all those MP's who stole money to pay mortgages didn't get their houses taken off them.
I reckon it could be very, very dangerous. Sparking off more riots.
After all those MP's who stole money to pay mortgages didn't get their houses taken off them.
- Joined
- 26 Sep 2008
- Messages
- 3,005
- Reaction score
- 518
- Country
It was stated on TV tonight that 80% of the accused were over 18.
Not only the unwashed, but professionals. If they lose their jobs and houses, who looks after them? Yes, you've guessed it, us, the decent law abiding tax payer. Send them on a ship out in the sea somewhere. No prison officers looking after them and far enough away so they can't swim to safety. Daily food drops and let them live together. If a riot occurs onboard and fires break out - so be it. The scum deserve nothing less than total abhorence from us.
There was a Solicitor on the news this afternoon saying that his 'clients' were perhaps too tired at 3 or 4 AM in the courts to give a factual account of their pleas. Tough ****e - they were there in the early hours of the morning causing havoc when they should have been at home - no sympathy at all. Let the a holes get all they deserve.
Not only the unwashed, but professionals. If they lose their jobs and houses, who looks after them? Yes, you've guessed it, us, the decent law abiding tax payer. Send them on a ship out in the sea somewhere. No prison officers looking after them and far enough away so they can't swim to safety. Daily food drops and let them live together. If a riot occurs onboard and fires break out - so be it. The scum deserve nothing less than total abhorence from us.
There was a Solicitor on the news this afternoon saying that his 'clients' were perhaps too tired at 3 or 4 AM in the courts to give a factual account of their pleas. Tough ****e - they were there in the early hours of the morning causing havoc when they should have been at home - no sympathy at all. Let the a holes get all they deserve.
M
Mickymoody
It was stated on TV yesterday that 50% were over 18, and a large percentage of those were in work. So I find issue with your comment of 'the unwashed', implying that unemployed people were involved to any extent. Show me the evidence, before making such implications.
It was stated on TV on Question Time, so I can prove where the figure came from.
What is the point of evicting someone from their council house? Or remove their benefits? Where do they live, how do they eat? So leads to more crime, and more disenfranchised people, wanting to break the system. And more riots. It's a kneejerk reaction. Sort out community service properly, where the people actually do work, not laze about. A good opportunity would be for CS to fill potholes, like the American classic chaingang, or help to build flood defences, as parts of Scotland was affected by floods, and the East in the last few days. Not tag clothes in a charity shop.
Oh, but the council ARE cutting jobs, so as predicted, an easy way for free labour for them to save money. Sack the workers, get CS in, for free. Always the masterplan.
It was stated on TV on Question Time, so I can prove where the figure came from.
What is the point of evicting someone from their council house? Or remove their benefits? Where do they live, how do they eat? So leads to more crime, and more disenfranchised people, wanting to break the system. And more riots. It's a kneejerk reaction. Sort out community service properly, where the people actually do work, not laze about. A good opportunity would be for CS to fill potholes, like the American classic chaingang, or help to build flood defences, as parts of Scotland was affected by floods, and the East in the last few days. Not tag clothes in a charity shop.
Oh, but the council ARE cutting jobs, so as predicted, an easy way for free labour for them to save money. Sack the workers, get CS in, for free. Always the masterplan.
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
