|
Re: The UK news thread.
Originally Posted by Fredbargate
(Post 11251921)
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has publicly vetoed a Conservative plan to automatically jail anyone caught in possession of a knife for a second time.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/clegg-vows...8.html#73RofIf More votes for UKIP :) |
Re: The UK news thread.
Originally Posted by me me
(Post 11251468)
Barclays are axing 20000 jobs in the next couple of years in the UK.
Supposedly closing branches and having everything through internet accounts. :frown: |
Re: The UK news thread.
Originally Posted by Fredbargate
(Post 11251921)
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has publicly vetoed a Conservative plan to automatically jail anyone caught in possession of a knife for a second time.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/clegg-vows...8.html#73RofIf More votes for UKIP :) |
Re: The UK news thread.
Originally Posted by rugbymatt
(Post 11252532)
UKIP also want to allow hand gun ownership in the UK.... Why not, it works so well in the US eh?
|
Re: The UK news thread.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...destroyer.html
are we back to a Cold War situation or just getting jumpy as this task group went into the Med back in December and are on their way home most Russian sailors are conscripts so really would just be cannon fodder in the event of a shooting war. But as some here know, the cannon fodder can cause enough damage.:ohmy: |
Re: The UK news thread.
Originally Posted by Madridboy
(Post 11252539)
I'm 100% in agreement with controlled gun ownership for citizens.
|
Re: The UK news thread.
I'm sickened beyond words by this --> "Rolf Harris sexually assaulted girl of 13, court told. Entertainer groomed girl like a pet and went on to repeatedly assault her over a period of several years, trial hears" http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...urt?CMP=twt_fd I used to watch him all the time when I was young and to think this is the sort of thing he was up to :(
|
Re: The UK news thread.
Originally Posted by Madridboy
(Post 11253482)
I'm sickened beyond words by this --> "Rolf Harris sexually assaulted girl of 13, court told. Entertainer groomed girl like a pet and went on to repeatedly assault her over a period of several years, trial hears" http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...urt?CMP=twt_fd I used to watch him all the time when I was young and to think this is the sort of thing he was up to :(
used to be the defendant was innocent until proven guilty :( |
Re: The UK news thread.
Originally Posted by Domino
(Post 11253528)
hmm Guilty by Media
used to be the defendant was innocent until proven guilty :( Would you prefer the system to be changed and all cases to be conducted in secret with no information of the proceedings disclosed ? At the end of the day it is the Jury who decides innocence or guilt, NOT the media. You could equally say that O.J. was tried by the media, but at the end of the day he wasn't and the Jury found him not guilty.(in the criminal court). |
Re: The UK news thread.
Originally Posted by Dick Dasterdly
(Post 11253791)
The media is simply repeating the statements put before the Court as it is entitled to do and as always been the case for as long as I can remember.
Would you prefer the system to be changed and all cases to be conducted in secret with no information of the proceedings disclosed ? At the end of the day it is the Jury who decides innocence or guilt, NOT the media. You could equally say that O.J. was tried by the media, but at the end of the day he wasn't and the Jury found him not guilty.(in the criminal court). I am not saying he didn't do it, I am not saying he did - I have said before that it is up to the jury to make the decision. However, as to secrecy - yes, perhaps such high profile trials should be "in camera", although once again we have accuser(s) who have no profile so there is no chance of another man coming along and making contrary evidence nor evidence as to her sexual proclivities, but we won't hear about that. And anything she has done in her past will all be due to him and him alone. Although it is ok to drag him and his (previous) good name through the mud in open court, it will always be mentioned if he is found innocent, as with William Roach. |
Re: The UK news thread.
Originally Posted by Domino
(Post 11253889)
it's not just the media it's the statement made by the OP and the manner in which made.
I am not saying he didn't do it, I am not saying he did - I have said before that it is up to the jury to make the decision. |
Re: The UK news thread.
There is no smoke without fire. The Public Prosecutions does not decide to bring a case without a lot of consideration. I would like to see these cases tried by a panel of Judges, not star struck plebs off the street.
|
Re: The UK news thread.
Originally Posted by Domino
(Post 11253889)
it's not just the media it's the statement made by the OP and the manner in which made.
I am not saying he didn't do it, I am not saying he did - I have said before that it is up to the jury to make the decision. However, as to secrecy - yes, perhaps such high profile trials should be "in camera", although once again we have accuser(s) who have no profile so there is no chance of another man coming along and making contrary evidence nor evidence as to her sexual proclivities, but we won't hear about that. And anything she has done in her past will all be due to him and him alone. Although it is ok to drag him and his (previous) good name through the mud in open court, it will always be mentioned if he is found innocent, as with William Roach. This can be wilder and further from the mark than actual statements made in court. Also as we saw not so long ago with some professional footballers, even total gagging orders don't work and the general public had soon spread the word, be it full truth or rumours, with a nod here and a wink there without even directly mentioning any names, so it would have been pointless trying to keep Roach's case under wraps. Remember he was found not guilty, not necessarily innocent. or not proven as a Scottish court would pronounce it. |
Re: The UK news thread.
Originally Posted by Dick Dasterdly
(Post 11254041)
There is little point in trying to conduct such cases in secrecy as in this day and age, both media and public will soon be well aware when some high profile celeb is pulled in and charged anyway and from then on speculation will begin.
This can be wilder and further from the mark than actual statements made in court. Also as we saw not so long ago with some professional footballers, even total gagging orders don't work and the general public had soon spread the word, be it full truth or rumours, with a nod here and a wink there without even directly mentioning any names, so it would have been pointless trying to keep Roach's case under wraps. Remember he was found not guilty, not necessarily innocent. or not proven as a Scottish court would pronounce it. and I would expect there are alot of people in Bray who know the families involved |
Re: The UK news thread.
Originally Posted by jackytoo
(Post 11254005)
There is no smoke without fire. The Public Prosecutions does not decide to bring a case without a lot of consideration. I would like to see these cases tried by a panel of Judges, not star struck plebs off the street.
except they have the most abysmal success rate, one that would shame any 3rd World country |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 1:21 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.