The lunatics truly have taken over the asylum.

24

Posts

  • I dislike the jury system. I think it would be better if the jurors did not talk to each other and made up their minds based purely on the evidence of the trial. If they all vote guilty, then the verdict is guilty. If they do not all vote guilty then guilt has not been proven so the verdict is not guilty. 
    I see no reason for the jurors to discuss the case before delivering a verdict. If the prosecution has not proved its case then talking about it will not change that fact. If guilt has been proven then you can deliver your verdict immediately.
  • I would think that it depends who the twelve good men are, in one case the evidence to convict just wasn't there, one witness who may have swayed the jury refused to give evidence, maybe intimidated but we didn't know that, the jury can only go on what's put before them and not what they imagine might have happened but even given that one chap in the jury room came out with the statement, "well if he didn't do it who did", twelve jurors with his thinking may have given a guilty verdict because in their eyes without any other suspects this accused must be guilty. Personally if I appeared in court I would rather take my chances with the magistrates.
  • 12 good men ??  I think they allow women on juries these days - yet another outdated expression ;)
    Apologies - just being awkward :)
    The 2 quoted crimes are completely different surely ?  The kicking of a seagull to death was presumably intentional - it would have taken longer to achieve whilst the death of a pedestrian was (again presumably ) accidental and would have been over in an instant - unless you are in full knowledge of both cases I don't see how you can either equate the 2 or make a reasonable comment on the verdict and subsequent punishment handed down  :)
  • pansyfacepansyface PEAK DISTRICT DerbyshirePosts: 15,299
    Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2. Dick the Butcher:.....

    (If he said that today, there would be a gang of secret policemen on his case.)
    Apophthegm -  a big word for a small thought.
  • jenny794jenny794 Posts: 28
    At least when things go to trial what is said, done and decided and by whom is usually in the public domain and can be scrutinised.  What worries me the most is what never gets to trial in the first place. Just look at the Epstein affair - he admitted his guilt but a prosecutor decided to a plea deal that gave him and loads of other people immunity from any future prosecution. All sealed and tucked away from and scrutiny. Apparently, if you have money and connections you can pay to do what the hell you want to whoever you want. Here in the UK, the politicians are all bribing each other and misrepresenting who they, lying to us all the time and it all continues with no repercussions. A UK company isn't allowed to lie and mislead the public to make money so why are our politicians allowed to?
  • ObelixxObelixx Vendée, Western FrancePosts: 18,141
    Just because something is not allowed doesn't mean people, politicians, companies don't do it!  And they'll only be punished if they're caught at it and for that you need an investigative press, not just the sensational, often dishnest headline writers that sell papers, combined with an effective police force which the UK no longer has - under-staffed, under-paid, under resourced, under-trained for modern crimes............  
    "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing." - George Bernard Shaw
  • Obelixx said:
    Just because something is not allowed doesn't mean people, politicians, companies don't do it!   
    I think that just about sums it up Obelixx.

    All sorts of things are "not allowed" but you see a total disregard every day - if we ALL behaved ourselves, there would be little need for the judicial system. 

    Sure it isn't just me who has noticed the increasing use of the term "wrongdoing" when describing a dubious or possible illegal act/behaviour - almost as if it can just be brushed aside as a mistake as opposed to a deliberate act.  The actual word "criminal" tends to make people sit up whereas "wrongdoing" doesn't quite catch the attention in the same way somehow.

    I for one would be glad to see the UK Royal Family reduced to the minimum - perhaps Andrew will be the first of several to disappear - one can only hope.

     

  • Hostafan1Hostafan1 Posts: 22,199
    I'd go with Monarch and next 4 in line. The rest can get their own jobs, buy/ rent their own houses and pay their own way. 
    Furthermore, I'd move them out of Buck House ( which they hate )  to Windsor ( which they like ) and convert Buck House into a fabulous museum / gallery  and use it to generate some money.  
    "The balcony" could be kept for  ceremonial occasions with a small suite of rooms behind.
    No more paying £3m of tax payers' money for "security" at  z list Eugene's ( or was it Beatrice? who cares anyway? )wedding.
    Devon.
  • ObelixxObelixx Vendée, Western FrancePosts: 18,141
    Sounds good to me.  They have enough personal wealth to maintain the lesser royals and they are not short of connections or opportunities for interesting and/or productive jobs.
    "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing." - George Bernard Shaw
  • Paul B3Paul B3 Posts: 2,748
    With 775 rooms inside Buckingham Palace , think of all the homeless/downtrodden people who could be housed in there . ;)

Sign In or Register to comment.