By pursuing this story, which has some legs yet, Starmer:
1. Labels Johnson as weak on national security and feeds the them of a Conservative Party compromised by its links to Russian oligarchs.
2. Starts to rebuild Labour's reputation on national security as part of the effort to reclaim support in the "Red Wall" seats.
3. Finds another angle to distance himself from Corbyn as he implicitly attacks Corbyn's craven conduct towards Russia, most notably on the novichok attack.
4. Challenges the SNP leader to condemn her predecessor's conduct.
My experience is similar stodge. I had to buy petrol for the first time in nearly two months last week. Bought myself an at-home milk frother to make lattes/cappuccinos at home to replace my takeaway coffees. Other than that coping but definitely spending more than 1.9% less than I was previously.
What we've saved in petrol was offset by having to buy a new car battery.
I bought a trickle charger a few weeks in: one of my better purchases I think.
I really hope Texas goes Democrat. Not because it means Trump definitively loses, but because TSE has to eat a pineapple pizza
I think there is a chance, probably still less than 50%. But I also want it to happen as I want Trump to get less than 100 EC votes, just for the humiliation value.
I've projected 413-125 in the EC votes based on tonight's Fox News polls which show very similar movement across the three battleground states.
I do agree it will be to the long term benefit of the Republican Party for Trump to be, in electoral terms and to borrow a phrase oft used by TSE of this parish, "pounded like a dockside hooker".
There's nothing more final for a populist than being shown to be massively unpopular.
That's pretty much what I've been predicting for the past month now.
The only possible fly in the ointment I can see for this scenario is a sudden improvement of prospects re COVID - a good vaccine or a good cure, or both - which allows the electorate to concentrate on economic issues. Even that would not guarantee a Trump turn around, but it is clear his attempt to turn BLM into Law and Order is serving only to galvanize his base at the further expense of the 'burbs.
By pursuing this story, which has some legs yet, Starmer:
1. Labels Johnson as weak on national security and feeds the them of a Conservative Party compromised by its links to Russian oligarchs.
2. Starts to rebuild Labour's reputation on national security as part of the effort to reclaim support in the "Red Wall" seats.
3. Finds another angle to distance himself from Corbyn as he implicitly attacks Corbyn's craven conduct towards Russia, most notably on the novichok attack.
4. Challenges the SNP leader to condemn her predecessor's conduct.
On point 4, I think it was established on here a couple of days ago that she already has, nearly 3 years ago.
Warning: That's an exceptionally user-hostile web-page. Not only does it auto-play videos (YUK), it also switches the sound on if you've got it switched off. And it does this repeatedly even if you switch the sound off again.
This is totally unacceptable. Don't click on the link.
Depends whether the polls are reliable. They were pretty inaccurate last time.
Surprisingly, Fox polls have a heavy Democrat lean so you need to scale Biden back a few points in their results. They're still pretty bad for Trump though, and Quinnipiac is the gold standard, so....
It was an extraordinary turnout for Trump in the burbs of St Pete that won Florida for him.
For Texas this time around, one thing that might militate for a Dem victory is that they are investing considerable resources in the State elections to try to win control of the House so that they get a voice in the 2021 redistricting for federal elections. This effort may well help them on the up side of the ticket.
Warning: That's an exceptionally user-hostile web-page. Not only does it auto-play videos (YUK), it also switches the sound on if you've got it switched off. And it does this repeatedly even if you switch the sound off again.
This is totally unacceptable. Don't click on the link.
It’s a good article, and it’s quite true that the science on masks is inadequate.
And they are correct that individual protection depends very much on correct usage.
But the rationale for everyone wearing them is stopping infecting other people far more than individual protection, and the ongoing trials they reference, I think will struggle to test that.
Warning: That's an exceptionally user-hostile web-page. Not only does it auto-play videos (YUK), it also switches the sound on if you've got it switched off. And it does this repeatedly even if you switch the sound off again.
This is totally unacceptable. Don't click on the link.
Nothing like that happens on an iPad
Interesting - I'm using Chrome under Windows (with AdBlock, of course).
By pursuing this story, which has some legs yet, Starmer:
1. Labels Johnson as weak on national security and feeds the them of a Conservative Party compromised by its links to Russian oligarchs.
2. Starts to rebuild Labour's reputation on national security as part of the effort to reclaim support in the "Red Wall" seats.
3. Finds another angle to distance himself from Corbyn as he implicitly attacks Corbyn's craven conduct towards Russia, most notably on the novichok attack.
4. Challenges the SNP leader to condemn her predecessor's conduct.
I don't really think it's a good idea for Labour to be in the news squabbling with itself about anti semitism and Russian corruption all the time - maybe it explains why they are slumping in the polls, although I reckon that's just a correction to the bounce they got when Covid was at its worst (the KS fanzine thought was down to his PMQs performances)
By pursuing this story, which has some legs yet, Starmer:
1. Labels Johnson as weak on national security and feeds the them of a Conservative Party compromised by its links to Russian oligarchs.
2. Starts to rebuild Labour's reputation on national security as part of the effort to reclaim support in the "Red Wall" seats.
3. Finds another angle to distance himself from Corbyn as he implicitly attacks Corbyn's craven conduct towards Russia, most notably on the novichok attack.
4. Challenges the SNP leader to condemn her predecessor's conduct.
On point 4, I think it was established on here a couple of days ago that she already has, nearly 3 years ago.
A mere inconvenient detail in the standard Labour approach to their Scotch strategising.
Warning: That's an exceptionally user-hostile web-page. Not only does it auto-play videos (YUK), it also switches the sound on if you've got it switched off. And it does this repeatedly even if you switch the sound off again.
This is totally unacceptable. Don't click on the link.
Warning: That's an exceptionally user-hostile web-page. Not only does it auto-play videos (YUK), it also switches the sound on if you've got it switched off. And it does this repeatedly even if you switch the sound off again.
This is totally unacceptable. Don't click on the link.
Warning: That's an exceptionally user-hostile web-page. Not only does it auto-play videos (YUK), it also switches the sound on if you've got it switched off. And it does this repeatedly even if you switch the sound off again.
This is totally unacceptable. Don't click on the link.
Nothing like that happens on an iPad
Interesting - I'm using Chrome under Windows (with AdBlock, of course).
(It’s notable that infected individuals appear to be most infectious to other people in the few days before they develop obvious symptoms.)
That is consistent with the anecdata from a sub-sample of one in the PtP household. We were both puzzled as to why I didn't catch it from Mrs PtP. By chance, we were apart for a week before she started to show symptoms and didn't get together again until she was a good four days into the episode.
There are other possible explanations but seems to me she was probably no longer a carrier when were reunited.
I really hope Texas goes Democrat. Not because it means Trump definitively loses, but because TSE has to eat a pineapple pizza
I think there is a chance, probably still less than 50%. But I also want it to happen as I want Trump to get less than 100 EC votes, just for the humiliation value.
I've projected 413-125 in the EC votes based on tonight's Fox News polls which show very similar movement across the three battleground states.
I do agree it will be to the long term benefit of the Republican Party for Trump to be, in electoral terms and to borrow a phrase oft used by TSE of this parish, "pounded like a dockside hooker".
There's nothing more final for a populist than being shown to be massively unpopular.
That's pretty much what I've been predicting for the past month now.
The only possible fly in the ointment I can see for this scenario is a sudden improvement of prospects re COVID - a good vaccine or a good cure, or both - which allows the electorate to concentrate on economic issues. Even that would not guarantee a Trump turn around, but it is clear his attempt to turn BLM into Law and Order is serving only to galvanize his base at the further expense of the 'burbs.
With only around 3 months to go (less to early voting) its a bit late for a miracle vaccine. It simply wouldn't be possible to vaccinate a nation by then.
Warning: That's an exceptionally user-hostile web-page. Not only does it auto-play videos (YUK), it also switches the sound on if you've got it switched off. And it does this repeatedly even if you switch the sound off again.
This is totally unacceptable. Don't click on the link.
Nothing like that happens on an iPad
Nor in Firefox.
Nor on my Chrome.
I just checked again. On my system, both Chrome and Microsoft Edge (I know, I know, no-one uses that..) show the behaviour I described. Opera doesn't. I don't currently have Firefox installed.
However, the point is that website should not attempt to autoplay videos, let alone fool around with your sound settings. That is completely unacceptable, and users shouldn't have to rely on the web-browser to protect them from such unacceptable behaviour.
I believe that Google removed the option from Chrome to disable video autoplay (presumably to protect Google's ad sales). I just immediately close all websites which try it. In the very rare cases where I really want to look at the page, I use Opera.
Warning: That's an exceptionally user-hostile web-page. Not only does it auto-play videos (YUK), it also switches the sound on if you've got it switched off. And it does this repeatedly even if you switch the sound off again.
This is totally unacceptable. Don't click on the link.
Nothing like that happens on an iPad
Nor in Firefox.
Nor on my Chrome.
I just checked again. On my system, both Chrome and Microsoft Edge (I know, I know, no-one uses that..) show the behaviour I described. Opera doesn't. I don't currently have Firefox installed.
However, the point is that website should not attempt to autoplay videos, let alone fool around with your sound settings. That is completely unacceptable, and users shouldn't have to rely on the web-browser to protect them from such unacceptable behaviour.
I believe that Google removed the option from Chrome to disable video autoplay (presumably to protect Google's ad sales). I just immediately close all websites which try it. In the very rare cases where I really want to look at the page, I use Opera.
It's supposed to "learn" what sites you don't want to autoplay videos on but it doesn't work.
There's an extension you can install that works properly. Stop autoplay or something like that, it is called.
(It’s notable that infected individuals appear to be most infectious to other people in the few days before they develop obvious symptoms.)
That is consistent with the anecdata from a sub-sample of one in the PtP household. We were both puzzled as to why I didn't catch it from Mrs PtP. By chance, we were apart for a week before she started to show symptoms and didn't get together again until she was a good four days into the episode.
There are other possible explanations but seems to me she was probably no longer a carrier when were reunited.
The primary goal is not to prevent you being infected, it is to prevent you from spreading the disease to other people.
It is transmitted via when people breath, or sing, or sneeze, or play beer pong.
When people wear masks, a large portion of droplets and aerosols from the upper repository tract are trapped, and even those that do depart the mouth and nose, go less far.
If everyone wore masks it would not completely stop CV19 transmission. However, it would make it much less likely that people with CV19 passed it on to other people unknowingly.
This is not complicated.
What gets me are the idiots who argue that because masks are imperfect we shouldn't bother with them. An "argument" that applies to essentially everything. I could beat those people with a big stick.
What gets me is I don't see anyone arguing against underpants. Society deems it necessary that we cover our junk out of decency and even the libertarians amongst us are pretty happy we live in a society where pants-wearing is enforced.
So everyone is cool with the state legislating to make sure we cover up our bits in public, but when the state asks us to put a cloth covering over our faces to actually save lives, people lose their minds. Madness.
But we aren't being asked to wear masks in shops to save lives we are being asked to wear masks in shops so they can shave a little of the R0 number so they can justify opening bars and restaurants again.
Inconvenience 100% in the hope of offsetting the disease spreading of the 30% that want to go have a pint or meal inside. Thankfully from what I see masks are being largely ignored here at least by small shops.
I am not aware of many if any hotspots that have been traced back to a supermarket, bars restaurants and nightclubs however. I personally would rather the last 3 had been left shut and think that we will have many hotspots crop up due to them
You'd literally rather bankrupt plenty of people's businesses and livelihoods and leave millions out of work than see people wearing a cloth mask? Madness.
People havent had to wear masks in shops we have had no spikes because of it. Other countries have opened bars and clubs and have new spikes. Me wearing a mask in a shop won't make any difference to the spread.
Frankly if reopening pubs means lots of new spikes and deaths then keep them closed. People will have to find other jobs. I hear lots are being created in delivery services.
We had no spikes because we were locked down. We don't need to be locked down anymore. Other restrictions are ending not just pubs etc
and the only difference between now and then is they opened bars restaurants and non essential shops....its not the huge step change you claim.
And you can visit family and friends. And you can go into peoples homes. And you the vulnerable are coming out of shielding. And millions are going back to work. And you can go on holiday. And you can play sport. And you can go to theatres, cinemas and other entertainment. And you can go to gyms. And preschools have reopened. And schools are reopening. And people are going back to sports stadia next month. And more and more and more
Life is getting back to normal. In order to get back to normal we need to wear a mask because the mask cuts transmission instead of being in lockdown. You seriously would rather remain under lockdown for another 12 months rather than wear a mask?
Yes I am enjoying lockdown entirely as to all those things most of them werent actually happening
Schools are reopening in september supposedly but I will believe that when it happens.
most of the things though like cinema's and theatres aren't going to happen either because it won't pay to reopen them. Permission to reopen isn't the same as reopening and you think all we need to do is wear masks in shops where there are no recorded resurgences despite the fact that throughout lockdown people were visiting shops maskless. There will be a resurgence and it will be people like you that cause it. In the mean time you are merely trying to incovenience the rest of us by your pal Boris pretending to take meaningful action.
Evidence within 3 days of the pub opening how many shut down again due to viral spread only was quite a few wasn't it.....how many supermarkets closed due to being the centre of viral spread during lockdown when people were going there maskless oh thats right it was a big fat zero!
Because there was no way of knowing if a supermarket was the cause. No one was checking.
More straw man arguments from you.
Many other countries have effective track and trace, how many have pinned outbreaks down to shopping?
It's supposed to "learn" what sites you don't want to autoplay videos on but it doesn't work..
If it's supposed to 'learn' that then it's not doing a very good job in my case, since the answer is very simple: I never ever, under any circumstances, want autoplay on.
Doesn't bode well for self-driving cars if that's the level of their machine learning!
It's supposed to "learn" what sites you don't want to autoplay videos on but it doesn't work..
If it's supposed to 'learn' that then it's not doing a very good job in my case, since the answer is very simple: I never ever, under any circumstances, want autoplay on.
Doesn't bode well for self-driving cars if that's the level of their machine learning!
No it doesn't work at all.
I'd get the extension if you find it annoying.
On Safari I have no issues but that's because Apple take privacy more seriously.
Warning: That's an exceptionally user-hostile web-page. Not only does it auto-play videos (YUK), it also switches the sound on if you've got it switched off. And it does this repeatedly even if you switch the sound off again.
This is totally unacceptable. Don't click on the link.
Nothing like that happens on an iPad
Nor in Firefox.
Nor on my Chrome.
I just checked again. On my system, both Chrome and Microsoft Edge (I know, I know, no-one uses that..) show the behaviour I described. Opera doesn't. I don't currently have Firefox installed.
However, the point is that website should not attempt to autoplay videos, let alone fool around with your sound settings. That is completely unacceptable, and users shouldn't have to rely on the web-browser to protect them from such unacceptable behaviour.
I believe that Google removed the option from Chrome to disable video autoplay (presumably to protect Google's ad sales). I just immediately close all websites which try it. In the very rare cases where I really want to look at the page, I use Opera.
Why would anyone in this day and age be running either edge or chrome? I've been running Opera for 15 years, it's consistently been better than the competition.
It's supposed to "learn" what sites you don't want to autoplay videos on but it doesn't work..
If it's supposed to 'learn' that then it's not doing a very good job in my case, since the answer is very simple: I never ever, under any circumstances, want autoplay on.
Doesn't bode well for self-driving cars if that's the level of their machine learning!
No it doesn't work at all.
I'd get the extension if you find it annoying.
On Safari I have no issues but that's because Apple take privacy more seriously.
I also use AdGuard.
The thing which baffles me is that I can't see why anyone would ever want videos to autoplay, especially on a news page where you want to read the article and they try to insist on showing you an unrelated video. The websites which move the video around so you can't even scroll past it are even worse. Who on earth puts up with this garbage, and why does any website owner think it's a good way of attracting users?
Warning: That's an exceptionally user-hostile web-page. Not only does it auto-play videos (YUK), it also switches the sound on if you've got it switched off. And it does this repeatedly even if you switch the sound off again.
This is totally unacceptable. Don't click on the link.
Nothing like that happens on an iPad
Nor in Firefox.
Nor on my Chrome.
I just checked again. On my system, both Chrome and Microsoft Edge (I know, I know, no-one uses that..) show the behaviour I described. Opera doesn't. I don't currently have Firefox installed.
However, the point is that website should not attempt to autoplay videos, let alone fool around with your sound settings. That is completely unacceptable, and users shouldn't have to rely on the web-browser to protect them from such unacceptable behaviour.
I believe that Google removed the option from Chrome to disable video autoplay (presumably to protect Google's ad sales). I just immediately close all websites which try it. In the very rare cases where I really want to look at the page, I use Opera.
Why would anyone in this day and age be running either edge or chrome? I've been running Opera for 15 years, it's consistently been better than the competition.
Warning: That's an exceptionally user-hostile web-page. Not only does it auto-play videos (YUK), it also switches the sound on if you've got it switched off. And it does this repeatedly even if you switch the sound off again.
This is totally unacceptable. Don't click on the link.
Nothing like that happens on an iPad
Nor in Firefox.
Nor on my Chrome.
I just checked again. On my system, both Chrome and Microsoft Edge (I know, I know, no-one uses that..) show the behaviour I described. Opera doesn't. I don't currently have Firefox installed.
However, the point is that website should not attempt to autoplay videos, let alone fool around with your sound settings. That is completely unacceptable, and users shouldn't have to rely on the web-browser to protect them from such unacceptable behaviour.
I believe that Google removed the option from Chrome to disable video autoplay (presumably to protect Google's ad sales). I just immediately close all websites which try it. In the very rare cases where I really want to look at the page, I use Opera.
Why would anyone in this day and age be running either edge or chrome? I've been running Opera for 15 years, it's consistently been better than the competition.
Warning: That's an exceptionally user-hostile web-page. Not only does it auto-play videos (YUK), it also switches the sound on if you've got it switched off. And it does this repeatedly even if you switch the sound off again.
This is totally unacceptable. Don't click on the link.
Nothing like that happens on an iPad
Nor in Firefox.
Nor on my Chrome.
I just checked again. On my system, both Chrome and Microsoft Edge (I know, I know, no-one uses that..) show the behaviour I described. Opera doesn't. I don't currently have Firefox installed.
However, the point is that website should not attempt to autoplay videos, let alone fool around with your sound settings. That is completely unacceptable, and users shouldn't have to rely on the web-browser to protect them from such unacceptable behaviour.
I believe that Google removed the option from Chrome to disable video autoplay (presumably to protect Google's ad sales). I just immediately close all websites which try it. In the very rare cases where I really want to look at the page, I use Opera.
Why would anyone in this day and age be running either edge or chrome? I've been running Opera for 15 years, it's consistently been better than the competition.
Opera is just Chrome underneath these days.
The web page was fine on Chromium (Version 83.0.4103.61)
BTW, in case anyone missed the content, the article makes a good point - where are all the oven-ready trade deals? The world is supposed to be beating a path to our door and falling over themselves to offer us advantageous terms because of .... well.... err... something.
We have secured deals to cover 8% of our trade and we have 5 months to go.
Warning: That's an exceptionally user-hostile web-page. Not only does it auto-play videos (YUK), it also switches the sound on if you've got it switched off. And it does this repeatedly even if you switch the sound off again.
This is totally unacceptable. Don't click on the link.
Nothing like that happens on an iPad
Nor in Firefox.
Nor on my Chrome.
I just checked again. On my system, both Chrome and Microsoft Edge (I know, I know, no-one uses that..) show the behaviour I described. Opera doesn't. I don't currently have Firefox installed.
However, the point is that website should not attempt to autoplay videos, let alone fool around with your sound settings. That is completely unacceptable, and users shouldn't have to rely on the web-browser to protect them from such unacceptable behaviour.
I believe that Google removed the option from Chrome to disable video autoplay (presumably to protect Google's ad sales). I just immediately close all websites which try it. In the very rare cases where I really want to look at the page, I use Opera.
Why would anyone in this day and age be running either edge or chrome? I've been running Opera for 15 years, it's consistently been better than the competition.
Opera is just Chrome underneath these days.
Who else remembers Mosaic?
I do - and Netscape Navigator, which is essentially Firefox's grandparent.
Warning: That's an exceptionally user-hostile web-page. Not only does it auto-play videos (YUK), it also switches the sound on if you've got it switched off. And it does this repeatedly even if you switch the sound off again.
This is totally unacceptable. Don't click on the link.
Nothing like that happens on an iPad
Nor in Firefox.
Nor on my Chrome.
I just checked again. On my system, both Chrome and Microsoft Edge (I know, I know, no-one uses that..) show the behaviour I described. Opera doesn't. I don't currently have Firefox installed.
However, the point is that website should not attempt to autoplay videos, let alone fool around with your sound settings. That is completely unacceptable, and users shouldn't have to rely on the web-browser to protect them from such unacceptable behaviour.
I believe that Google removed the option from Chrome to disable video autoplay (presumably to protect Google's ad sales). I just immediately close all websites which try it. In the very rare cases where I really want to look at the page, I use Opera.
Why would anyone in this day and age be running either edge or chrome? I've been running Opera for 15 years, it's consistently been better than the competition.
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
They will probably get a suspended sentence as they were allowed to walk out of court at the end
That would be a major departure from the sentencing guidelines. The average sentence for manslaughter is 8 years. I suspect less in this case, perhaps 4 to 6.
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
You’ve gone from “I don’t know the law at all” to “it seems obvious” in one sentence. What? Murder requires an intent to cause gbh or death. Quite a high bar to prove.
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
Double jeopardy was reformed in the 2003 Criminal Justice Act, so there can be further trials under certain circumstances:
there are demanding legal tests which must be met in ‘double jeopardy’ cases, and a special process to be followed. First, the rule has only been reformed for the most serious crimes such as murder and rape. A person cannot face a second trial after being acquitted of shoplifting, no matter how strong the new evidence! For crimes which do fall within the rules, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) must personally consent to an investigation being reopened. The DPP will consider not only the strength of the evidence, but also whether reopening the case is in the public interest.
The investigation can only lead to a fresh prosecution if ‘new and compelling’ evidence is uncovered. To be ‘new’, it must not have been available for the original prosecution. ‘Compelling’ means very strong, so that a conviction is highly probable. If the prosecution believes that a legal test can be met, they have to get the consent of the DPP to make an application to the Court of Appeal. They must then persuade the Court of Appeal to quash the original acquittal and order a retrial. Before making such an order, the Court of Appeal will consider not only the strength of the case, but also the public interest. For example, a new trial will not be granted to make up for incompetence in the original prosecution, or for a case so old that a fair trial is no longer possible.
Hopefully they will be stupid enough to get pissed and confess, therefore generating the "new and compelling" evidence.
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
You’ve gone from “I don’t know the law at all” to “it seems obvious” in one sentence. What? Murder requires an intent to cause gbh or death. Quite a high bar to prove.
Having ridden a quad bike i cant see anyway they are dragging a 16 stone man along and that if they continued it would not result in death. They could have easily stopped and unhooked him I very much doubt he was in a state to arrest them. The fact they didn't implies strongly mens rea is there
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
Double jeopardy was reformed in the 2003 Criminal Justice Act, so there can be further trials under certain circumstances:
there are demanding legal tests which must be met in ‘double jeopardy’ cases, and a special process to be followed. First, the rule has only been reformed for the most serious crimes such as murder and rape. A person cannot face a second trial after being acquitted of shoplifting, no matter how strong the new evidence! For crimes which do fall within the rules, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) must personally consent to an investigation being reopened. The DPP will consider not only the strength of the evidence, but also whether reopening the case is in the public interest.
The investigation can only lead to a fresh prosecution if ‘new and compelling’ evidence is uncovered. To be ‘new’, it must not have been available for the original prosecution. ‘Compelling’ means very strong, so that a conviction is highly probable. If the prosecution believes that a legal test can be met, they have to get the consent of the DPP to make an application to the Court of Appeal. They must then persuade the Court of Appeal to quash the original acquittal and order a retrial. Before making such an order, the Court of Appeal will consider not only the strength of the case, but also the public interest. For example, a new trial will not be granted to make up for incompetence in the original prosecution, or for a case so old that a fair trial is no longer possible.
Hopefully they will be stupid enough to get pissed and confess, therefore generating the "new and compelling" evidence.
I don't like on principle that reform. Double jeopardy should never have been messed with in my opinion. Like trying to mess with trial by jury.
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
You’ve gone from “I don’t know the law at all” to “it seems obvious” in one sentence. What? Murder requires an intent to cause gbh or death. Quite a high bar to prove.
Having ridden a quad bike i cant see anyway they are dragging a 16 stone man along and that if they continued it would not result in death. They could have easily stopped and unhooked him I very much doubt he was in a state to arrest them. The fact they didn't implies strongly mens rea is there
I don’t know any of the details so I can’t really comment.
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
Double jeopardy was reformed in the 2003 Criminal Justice Act, so there can be further trials under certain circumstances:
there are demanding legal tests which must be met in ‘double jeopardy’ cases, and a special process to be followed. First, the rule has only been reformed for the most serious crimes such as murder and rape. A person cannot face a second trial after being acquitted of shoplifting, no matter how strong the new evidence! For crimes which do fall within the rules, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) must personally consent to an investigation being reopened. The DPP will consider not only the strength of the evidence, but also whether reopening the case is in the public interest.
The investigation can only lead to a fresh prosecution if ‘new and compelling’ evidence is uncovered. To be ‘new’, it must not have been available for the original prosecution. ‘Compelling’ means very strong, so that a conviction is highly probable. If the prosecution believes that a legal test can be met, they have to get the consent of the DPP to make an application to the Court of Appeal. They must then persuade the Court of Appeal to quash the original acquittal and order a retrial. Before making such an order, the Court of Appeal will consider not only the strength of the case, but also the public interest. For example, a new trial will not be granted to make up for incompetence in the original prosecution, or for a case so old that a fair trial is no longer possible.
Hopefully they will be stupid enough to get pissed and confess, therefore generating the "new and compelling" evidence.
I don't like on principle that reform. Double jeopardy should never have been messed with in my opinion. Like trying to mess with trial by jury.
Going to both agree and disagree with Philipp here....double jeapordy should not be a thing.......unless you can show the jury was nobbled
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
You’ve gone from “I don’t know the law at all” to “it seems obvious” in one sentence. What? Murder requires an intent to cause gbh or death. Quite a high bar to prove.
Having ridden a quad bike i cant see anyway they are dragging a 16 stone man along and that if they continued it would not result in death. They could have easily stopped and unhooked him I very much doubt he was in a state to arrest them. The fact they didn't implies strongly mens rea is there
I don’t know any of the details so I can’t really comment.
If you are on a quad bike dragging a 16 stone weight on a rope you certainly are aware its there
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
Double jeopardy was reformed in the 2003 Criminal Justice Act, so there can be further trials under certain circumstances:
there are demanding legal tests which must be met in ‘double jeopardy’ cases, and a special process to be followed. First, the rule has only been reformed for the most serious crimes such as murder and rape. A person cannot face a second trial after being acquitted of shoplifting, no matter how strong the new evidence! For crimes which do fall within the rules, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) must personally consent to an investigation being reopened. The DPP will consider not only the strength of the evidence, but also whether reopening the case is in the public interest.
The investigation can only lead to a fresh prosecution if ‘new and compelling’ evidence is uncovered. To be ‘new’, it must not have been available for the original prosecution. ‘Compelling’ means very strong, so that a conviction is highly probable. If the prosecution believes that a legal test can be met, they have to get the consent of the DPP to make an application to the Court of Appeal. They must then persuade the Court of Appeal to quash the original acquittal and order a retrial. Before making such an order, the Court of Appeal will consider not only the strength of the case, but also the public interest. For example, a new trial will not be granted to make up for incompetence in the original prosecution, or for a case so old that a fair trial is no longer possible.
Hopefully they will be stupid enough to get pissed and confess, therefore generating the "new and compelling" evidence.
I don't like on principle that reform. Double jeopardy should never have been messed with in my opinion. Like trying to mess with trial by jury.
Going to both agree and disagree with Philipp here....double jeapordy should not be a thing.......unless you can show the jury was nobbled
Nobbling a jury can, does and should carry a life sentence. If anyone has perverted the course of justice and it can be proven they should be sent down for life.
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
Double jeopardy was reformed in the 2003 Criminal Justice Act, so there can be further trials under certain circumstances:
there are demanding legal tests which must be met in ‘double jeopardy’ cases, and a special process to be followed. First, the rule has only been reformed for the most serious crimes such as murder and rape. A person cannot face a second trial after being acquitted of shoplifting, no matter how strong the new evidence! For crimes which do fall within the rules, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) must personally consent to an investigation being reopened. The DPP will consider not only the strength of the evidence, but also whether reopening the case is in the public interest.
The investigation can only lead to a fresh prosecution if ‘new and compelling’ evidence is uncovered. To be ‘new’, it must not have been available for the original prosecution. ‘Compelling’ means very strong, so that a conviction is highly probable. If the prosecution believes that a legal test can be met, they have to get the consent of the DPP to make an application to the Court of Appeal. They must then persuade the Court of Appeal to quash the original acquittal and order a retrial. Before making such an order, the Court of Appeal will consider not only the strength of the case, but also the public interest. For example, a new trial will not be granted to make up for incompetence in the original prosecution, or for a case so old that a fair trial is no longer possible.
Hopefully they will be stupid enough to get pissed and confess, therefore generating the "new and compelling" evidence.
I don't like on principle that reform. Double jeopardy should never have been messed with in my opinion. Like trying to mess with trial by jury.
Going to both agree and disagree with Philipp here....double jeapordy should not be a thing.......unless you can show the jury was nobbled
Nobbling a jury can, does and should carry a life sentence. If anyone has perverted the course of justice and it can be proven they should be sent down for life.
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
You’ve gone from “I don’t know the law at all” to “it seems obvious” in one sentence. What? Murder requires an intent to cause gbh or death. Quite a high bar to prove.
Having ridden a quad bike i cant see anyway they are dragging a 16 stone man along and that if they continued it would not result in death. They could have easily stopped and unhooked him I very much doubt he was in a state to arrest them. The fact they didn't implies strongly mens rea is there
I don’t know any of the details so I can’t really comment.
If you are on a quad bike dragging a 16 stone weight on a rope you certainly are aware its there
Yeah and? That doesn’t prove an intention in itself.
Regardless I’m not trying to defend them. I was merely questioning the premise that the jury was “obviously” dodgy for not finding them guilty of murder.
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
You’ve gone from “I don’t know the law at all” to “it seems obvious” in one sentence. What? Murder requires an intent to cause gbh or death. Quite a high bar to prove.
Yes I don’t know the law on double jeopardy at all, but it seems obvious the jury were got at. That’s what!
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
Double jeopardy was reformed in the 2003 Criminal Justice Act, so there can be further trials under certain circumstances:
there are demanding legal tests which must be met in ‘double jeopardy’ cases, and a special process to be followed. First, the rule has only been reformed for the most serious crimes such as murder and rape. A person cannot face a second trial after being acquitted of shoplifting, no matter how strong the new evidence! For crimes which do fall within the rules, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) must personally consent to an investigation being reopened. The DPP will consider not only the strength of the evidence, but also whether reopening the case is in the public interest.
The investigation can only lead to a fresh prosecution if ‘new and compelling’ evidence is uncovered. To be ‘new’, it must not have been available for the original prosecution. ‘Compelling’ means very strong, so that a conviction is highly probable. If the prosecution believes that a legal test can be met, they have to get the consent of the DPP to make an application to the Court of Appeal. They must then persuade the Court of Appeal to quash the original acquittal and order a retrial. Before making such an order, the Court of Appeal will consider not only the strength of the case, but also the public interest. For example, a new trial will not be granted to make up for incompetence in the original prosecution, or for a case so old that a fair trial is no longer possible.
Hopefully they will be stupid enough to get pissed and confess, therefore generating the "new and compelling" evidence.
I don't like on principle that reform. Double jeopardy should never have been messed with in my opinion. Like trying to mess with trial by jury.
Going to both agree and disagree with Philipp here....double jeapordy should not be a thing.......unless you can show the jury was nobbled
Nobbling a jury can, does and should carry a life sentence. If anyone has perverted the course of justice and it can be proven they should be sent down for life.
For once we agree
As I understand the case the defence was they did not realise they were dragging him.
Having ridden a quad bike I do not believe that is feasible
I suspect any jury given a chance to drive a quad bike without the weight dragging on a appropriate length of rope and with it would not have acquitted if not bent.
Of course the jury may not have been shown the difference in which case the prosecution was incompetent
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
Double jeopardy was reformed in the 2003 Criminal Justice Act, so there can be further trials under certain circumstances:
there are demanding legal tests which must be met in ‘double jeopardy’ cases, and a special process to be followed. First, the rule has only been reformed for the most serious crimes such as murder and rape. A person cannot face a second trial after being acquitted of shoplifting, no matter how strong the new evidence! For crimes which do fall within the rules, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) must personally consent to an investigation being reopened. The DPP will consider not only the strength of the evidence, but also whether reopening the case is in the public interest.
The investigation can only lead to a fresh prosecution if ‘new and compelling’ evidence is uncovered. To be ‘new’, it must not have been available for the original prosecution. ‘Compelling’ means very strong, so that a conviction is highly probable. If the prosecution believes that a legal test can be met, they have to get the consent of the DPP to make an application to the Court of Appeal. They must then persuade the Court of Appeal to quash the original acquittal and order a retrial. Before making such an order, the Court of Appeal will consider not only the strength of the case, but also the public interest. For example, a new trial will not be granted to make up for incompetence in the original prosecution, or for a case so old that a fair trial is no longer possible.
Hopefully they will be stupid enough to get pissed and confess, therefore generating the "new and compelling" evidence.
I don't like on principle that reform. Double jeopardy should never have been messed with in my opinion. Like trying to mess with trial by jury.
I don't agree about trial by jury but you are right about double jeopardy. The fact that you can be tried twice for the same offence in America through the loophole of federal/state jurisdiction is a blot on its justice system.
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
You’ve gone from “I don’t know the law at all” to “it seems obvious” in one sentence. What? Murder requires an intent to cause gbh or death. Quite a high bar to prove.
Having ridden a quad bike i cant see anyway they are dragging a 16 stone man along and that if they continued it would not result in death. They could have easily stopped and unhooked him I very much doubt he was in a state to arrest them. The fact they didn't implies strongly mens rea is there
I don’t know any of the details so I can’t really comment.
If you are on a quad bike dragging a 16 stone weight on a rope you certainly are aware its there
Yeah and? That doesn’t prove an intention in itself.
Regardless I’m not trying to defend them. I was merely questioning the premise that the jury was “obviously” dodgy for not finding them guilty of murder.
If you are dragging someone along a road on the end of a rope, a favoured execution method then implying they didn't realise it would end likely in the death of the dragee is bollocks. It would be like saying I didnt realise they might die if I shoved them in an industrial microwave and set the time to 45 minutes before hitting start
@Pagan2 the BBC article suggests that the Defence argument was that they was no intention to cause said harm, not that they did not realize they were dragging him.
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
You’ve gone from “I don’t know the law at all” to “it seems obvious” in one sentence. What? Murder requires an intent to cause gbh or death. Quite a high bar to prove.
Having ridden a quad bike i cant see anyway they are dragging a 16 stone man along and that if they continued it would not result in death. They could have easily stopped and unhooked him I very much doubt he was in a state to arrest them. The fact they didn't implies strongly mens rea is there
I don’t know any of the details so I can’t really comment.
If you are on a quad bike dragging a 16 stone weight on a rope you certainly are aware its there
Yeah and? That doesn’t prove an intention in itself.
Regardless I’m not trying to defend them. I was merely questioning the premise that the jury was “obviously” dodgy for not finding them guilty of murder.
If you are dragging someone along a road on the end of a rope, a favoured execution method then implying they didn't realise it would end likely in the death of the dragee is bollocks. It would be like saying I didnt realise they might die if I shoved them in an industrial microwave and set the time to 45 minutes before hitting start
Remember recklessness to an outcome is not the same as intent in law...
@Pagan2 the BBC article suggests that the Defence argument was that they was no intention to cause said harm, not that they did not realize they were dragging him.
Ok so if I point a gun at someones head would my defence of I didnt mean to kill them and didnt realise it might do and I had no intention to kill them carry weight? I think not
@Pagan2 the BBC article suggests that the Defence argument was that they was no intention to cause said harm, not that they did not realize they were dragging him.
Ok so if I point a gun at someones head would my defence of I didnt mean to kill them and didnt realise it might do and I had no intention to kill them carry weight? I think not
@Pagan2 the BBC article suggests that the Defence argument was that they was no intention to cause said harm, not that they did not realize they were dragging him.
Sorry what did they think that dragging a man along a road would do if they didnt think it would cause harm. Just about everyone has a friend that has come off a motorbike in full protective gear and been subject to road rash
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
They will probably get a suspended sentence as they were allowed to walk out of court at the end
I don't think that's necessarily true, people are still out on bail until sentencing aren't they?
Well we will see what happens my money is on a suspended sentence
£50 bet to make it interesting? Custodial sentence and I win, non-custodial of any kind, and you do.
I will take you on there, however I am not sure how I could pay mechanically only got a debit card.....tell me how happy to go for it
Bitcoin?
I prefer to avoid bitcoin if you dont mind. I really dont want to have to set it all up and have any exposure to it. Do you not just have a pokerstars account will for example quite happily transfer 60us$ to you which is more or less 50£ and you can transfer back when I win plus another 60
@Pagan2 the BBC article suggests that the Defence argument was that they was no intention to cause said harm, not that they did not realize they were dragging him.
Sorry what did they think that dragging a man along a road would do if they didnt think it would cause harm. Just about everyone has a friend that has come off a motorbike in full protective gear and been subject to road rash
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.
“Intent” is not the same as “recklessness to an outcome”. The law is complicated, it isn’t simple, and your layman analogies are irrelevant here.
Manslaughter can result in a life sentence anyway if the judge deems it suitable. What is the problem?
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
Double jeopardy was reformed in the 2003 Criminal Justice Act, so there can be further trials under certain circumstances:
there are demanding legal tests which must be met in ‘double jeopardy’ cases, and a special process to be followed. First, the rule has only been reformed for the most serious crimes such as murder and rape. A person cannot face a second trial after being acquitted of shoplifting, no matter how strong the new evidence! For crimes which do fall within the rules, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) must personally consent to an investigation being reopened. The DPP will consider not only the strength of the evidence, but also whether reopening the case is in the public interest.
The investigation can only lead to a fresh prosecution if ‘new and compelling’ evidence is uncovered. To be ‘new’, it must not have been available for the original prosecution. ‘Compelling’ means very strong, so that a conviction is highly probable. If the prosecution believes that a legal test can be met, they have to get the consent of the DPP to make an application to the Court of Appeal. They must then persuade the Court of Appeal to quash the original acquittal and order a retrial. Before making such an order, the Court of Appeal will consider not only the strength of the case, but also the public interest. For example, a new trial will not be granted to make up for incompetence in the original prosecution, or for a case so old that a fair trial is no longer possible.
Hopefully they will be stupid enough to get pissed and confess, therefore generating the "new and compelling" evidence.
I don't like on principle that reform. Double jeopardy should never have been messed with in my opinion. Like trying to mess with trial by jury.
@Pagan2 the BBC article suggests that the Defence argument was that they was no intention to cause said harm, not that they did not realize they were dragging him.
Sorry what did they think that dragging a man along a road would do if they didnt think it would cause harm. Just about everyone has a friend that has come off a motorbike in full protective gear and been subject to road rash
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.
“Intent” is not the same as “recklessness to an outcome”. The law is complicated, it isn’t simple, and your layman analogies are irrelevant here.
Manslaughter can result in a life sentence anyway if the judge deems it suitable. What is the problem?
Ah so in your world putting a noose around someones neck and pulling them up in the air is merely being reckless to an outcome. Death by dragging was just as common an execution method for lynch victims.
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
You’ve gone from “I don’t know the law at all” to “it seems obvious” in one sentence. What? Murder requires an intent to cause gbh or death. Quite a high bar to prove.
Yes I don’t know the law on double jeopardy at all, but it seems obvious the jury were got at. That’s what!
We weren't there. We didn't hear the case. All we see is the newspaper stories.
And remember that in the UK (unlike the US) majority verdicts are needed. So getting at even two jurors wouldn't be enough on its own. Not only that, but if the jury couldn't reach a decision, we'd know that. So if the jury was got at, it has to been 10 of the 12 members who were nobbled.
So, it's possible that had we been in that courtroom, and listened to what the jury heard, then we'd have gone the same way.
Anyway Manslaughter can carry the same sentence as Murder anyway, just not the mandatory life sentence. Not sure what the issue is really.
Let's hope the judge hasn't been nobbled.
Even then the Attorney General now has the last word on sentencing if needed and if Boris thinks it is a weak sentence and wants to shore up the Sun and Mail vote and the Red Wall he and Cummings will just tell Braverman to impose life sentences on all 3
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
You’ve gone from “I don’t know the law at all” to “it seems obvious” in one sentence. What? Murder requires an intent to cause gbh or death. Quite a high bar to prove.
Yes I don’t know the law on double jeopardy at all, but it seems obvious the jury were got at. That’s what!
We weren't there. We didn't hear the case. All we see is the newspaper stories.
And remember that in the UK (unlike the US) majority verdicts are needed. So getting at even two jurors wouldn't be enough on its own. Not only that, but if the jury couldn't reach a decision, we'd know that. So if the jury was got at, it has to been 10 of the 12 members who were nobbled.
So, it's possible that had we been in that courtroom, and listened to what the jury heard, then we'd have gone the same way.
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
They will probably get a suspended sentence as they were allowed to walk out of court at the end
I don't think that's necessarily true, people are still out on bail until sentencing aren't they?
Well we will see what happens my money is on a suspended sentence
£50 bet to make it interesting? Custodial sentence and I win, non-custodial of any kind, and you do.
I will take you on there, however I am not sure how I could pay mechanically only got a debit card.....tell me how happy to go for it
Bitcoin?
I prefer to avoid bitcoin if you dont mind. I really dont want to have to set it all up and have any exposure to it. Do you not just have a pokerstars account will for example quite happily transfer 60us$ to you which is more or less 50£ and you can transfer back when I win plus another 60
I probably do have a Pokerstars account somewhere
We'll work it out if you're up for it. (Also we could user Transferwise)
@Pagan2 the BBC article suggests that the Defence argument was that they was no intention to cause said harm, not that they did not realize they were dragging him.
Sorry what did they think that dragging a man along a road would do if they didnt think it would cause harm. Just about everyone has a friend that has come off a motorbike in full protective gear and been subject to road rash
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.
“Intent” is not the same as “recklessness to an outcome”. The law is complicated, it isn’t simple, and your layman analogies are irrelevant here.
Manslaughter can result in a life sentence anyway if the judge deems it suitable. What is the problem?
Ah so in your world putting a noose around someones neck and pulling them up in the air is merely being reckless to an outcome. Death by dragging was just as common an execution method for lynch victims.
I don’t understand your point.
In your example, the prosecution would have to prove the defendant intended to cause gbh or death by their actions. The defence may argue that they didn’t, whether that is credible or not is another question.
Remember it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt.
Did the defendants in this case intend to cause gbh or kill the victim, or did they merely intend to get away, and were reckless to the possibility that the victim might get hurt, or even die? If its the latter then its manslaughter not murder.
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
You’ve gone from “I don’t know the law at all” to “it seems obvious” in one sentence. What? Murder requires an intent to cause gbh or death. Quite a high bar to prove.
Yes I don’t know the law on double jeopardy at all, but it seems obvious the jury were got at. That’s what!
We weren't there. We didn't hear the case. All we see is the newspaper stories.
And remember that in the UK (unlike the US) majority verdicts are needed. So getting at even two jurors wouldn't be enough on its own. Not only that, but if the jury couldn't reach a decision, we'd know that. So if the jury was got at, it has to been 10 of the 12 members who were nobbled.
So, it's possible that had we been in that courtroom, and listened to what the jury heard, then we'd have gone the same way.
You don’t say
I understand why the family's pissed. I'm pissed. You just have to see the bastards' reactions.
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
You’ve gone from “I don’t know the law at all” to “it seems obvious” in one sentence. What? Murder requires an intent to cause gbh or death. Quite a high bar to prove.
Yes I don’t know the law on double jeopardy at all, but it seems obvious the jury were got at. That’s what!
We weren't there. We didn't hear the case. All we see is the newspaper stories.
And remember that in the UK (unlike the US) majority verdicts are needed. So getting at even two jurors wouldn't be enough on its own. Not only that, but if the jury couldn't reach a decision, we'd know that. So if the jury was got at, it has to been 10 of the 12 members who were nobbled.
So, it's possible that had we been in that courtroom, and listened to what the jury heard, then we'd have gone the same way.
You don’t say
I understand why the family's pissed. I'm pissed. You just have to see the bastards' reactions.
Of course they're pissed. In their shoes, I'd be angry beyond belief.
But the jury presumably had their reasons for making the decision they did.
@Pagan2 the BBC article suggests that the Defence argument was that they was no intention to cause said harm, not that they did not realize they were dragging him.
Sorry what did they think that dragging a man along a road would do if they didnt think it would cause harm. Just about everyone has a friend that has come off a motorbike in full protective gear and been subject to road rash
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.
“Intent” is not the same as “recklessness to an outcome”. The law is complicated, it isn’t simple, and your layman analogies are irrelevant here.
Manslaughter can result in a life sentence anyway if the judge deems it suitable. What is the problem?
Ah so in your world putting a noose around someones neck and pulling them up in the air is merely being reckless to an outcome. Death by dragging was just as common an execution method for lynch victims.
I don’t understand your point.
In your example, the prosecution would have to prove the defendant intended to cause gbh or death by their actions. The defence may argue that they didn’t, whether that is credible or not is another question.
Remember it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt.
Did the defendants in this case intend to cause gbh or kill the victim, or did they merely intend to get away, and were reckless to the possibility that the victim might get hurt, or even die? If its the latter then its manslaughter not murder.
My point was shooting someone in the head with a gun is likely to cause serious damage Dragging someone down the road on the end of a rope is going to cause serious damage
You seem to be arguing that on the second count they couldn't forsee that
@Pagan2 the BBC article suggests that the Defence argument was that they was no intention to cause said harm, not that they did not realize they were dragging him.
Sorry what did they think that dragging a man along a road would do if they didnt think it would cause harm. Just about everyone has a friend that has come off a motorbike in full protective gear and been subject to road rash
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.
“Intent” is not the same as “recklessness to an outcome”. The law is complicated, it isn’t simple, and your layman analogies are irrelevant here.
Manslaughter can result in a life sentence anyway if the judge deems it suitable. What is the problem?
Ah so in your world putting a noose around someones neck and pulling them up in the air is merely being reckless to an outcome. Death by dragging was just as common an execution method for lynch victims.
I don’t understand your point.
In your example, the prosecution would have to prove the defendant intended to cause gbh or death by their actions. The defence may argue that they didn’t, whether that is credible or not is another question.
Remember it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt.
Did the defendants in this case intend to cause gbh or kill the victim, or did they merely intend to get away, and were reckless to the possibility that the victim might get hurt, or even die? If its the latter then its manslaughter not murder.
My point was shooting someone in the head with a gun is likely to cause serious damage Dragging someone down the road on the end of a rope is going to cause serious damage
You seem to be arguing that on the second count they couldn't forsee that
It does not matter if they foresaw it. The intention is what matters. If they INTENDED to escape, considered that their actions might hurt or kill the victim, but proceeded anyway with that risk, then that’s still manslaughter not murder.
With murder you have to prove intention. This isn’t America - we don’t have 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree murder.
@Pagan2 the BBC article suggests that the Defence argument was that they was no intention to cause said harm, not that they did not realize they were dragging him.
Sorry what did they think that dragging a man along a road would do if they didnt think it would cause harm. Just about everyone has a friend that has come off a motorbike in full protective gear and been subject to road rash
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.
“Intent” is not the same as “recklessness to an outcome”. The law is complicated, it isn’t simple, and your layman analogies are irrelevant here.
Manslaughter can result in a life sentence anyway if the judge deems it suitable. What is the problem?
Ah so in your world putting a noose around someones neck and pulling them up in the air is merely being reckless to an outcome. Death by dragging was just as common an execution method for lynch victims.
I don’t understand your point.
In your example, the prosecution would have to prove the defendant intended to cause gbh or death by their actions. The defence may argue that they didn’t, whether that is credible or not is another question.
Remember it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt.
Did the defendants in this case intend to cause gbh or kill the victim, or did they merely intend to get away, and were reckless to the possibility that the victim might get hurt, or even die? If its the latter then its manslaughter not murder.
So the fact that the bastards were so ignorant as to be uncomprehending that if you pulled a man behind a car at 40mph on tarmac, its not cuts and bruises but death is extenuating, making it manslaughter. That's a stretch however you approach it. Scum.
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
You’ve gone from “I don’t know the law at all” to “it seems obvious” in one sentence. What? Murder requires an intent to cause gbh or death. Quite a high bar to prove.
Yes I don’t know the law on double jeopardy at all, but it seems obvious the jury were got at. That’s what!
We weren't there. We didn't hear the case. All we see is the newspaper stories.
And remember that in the UK (unlike the US) majority verdicts are needed. So getting at even two jurors wouldn't be enough on its own. Not only that, but if the jury couldn't reach a decision, we'd know that. So if the jury was got at, it has to been 10 of the 12 members who were nobbled.
So, it's possible that had we been in that courtroom, and listened to what the jury heard, then we'd have gone the same way.
You don’t say
I understand why the family's pissed. I'm pissed. You just have to see the bastards' reactions.
Of course they're pissed. In their shoes, I'd be angry beyond belief.
But the jury presumably had their reasons for making the decision they did.
@Pagan2 the BBC article suggests that the Defence argument was that they was no intention to cause said harm, not that they did not realize they were dragging him.
Sorry what did they think that dragging a man along a road would do if they didnt think it would cause harm. Just about everyone has a friend that has come off a motorbike in full protective gear and been subject to road rash
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.
“Intent” is not the same as “recklessness to an outcome”. The law is complicated, it isn’t simple, and your layman analogies are irrelevant here.
Manslaughter can result in a life sentence anyway if the judge deems it suitable. What is the problem?
Ah so in your world putting a noose around someones neck and pulling them up in the air is merely being reckless to an outcome. Death by dragging was just as common an execution method for lynch victims.
I don’t understand your point.
In your example, the prosecution would have to prove the defendant intended to cause gbh or death by their actions. The defence may argue that they didn’t, whether that is credible or not is another question.
Remember it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt.
Did the defendants in this case intend to cause gbh or kill the victim, or did they merely intend to get away, and were reckless to the possibility that the victim might get hurt, or even die? If its the latter then its manslaughter not murder.
So the fact that the bastards were so ignorant as to be uncomprehending that if you pulled a man behind a car at 40mph on tarmac, its not cuts and bruises but death is extenuating, making it manslaughter. That's a stretch however you approach it. Scum.
They are scum. But what difference does it make? If the justice system is working as intended, the judge will impose a long prison sentence regardless of whether it was “murder” or “manslaughter”.
Like @HYUFD says the attorney general can also intervene if the government considers the sentence too lenient.
@Pagan2 the BBC article suggests that the Defence argument was that they was no intention to cause said harm, not that they did not realize they were dragging him.
Sorry what did they think that dragging a man along a road would do if they didnt think it would cause harm. Just about everyone has a friend that has come off a motorbike in full protective gear and been subject to road rash
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.
“Intent” is not the same as “recklessness to an outcome”. The law is complicated, it isn’t simple, and your layman analogies are irrelevant here.
Manslaughter can result in a life sentence anyway if the judge deems it suitable. What is the problem?
Ah so in your world putting a noose around someones neck and pulling them up in the air is merely being reckless to an outcome. Death by dragging was just as common an execution method for lynch victims.
I don’t understand your point.
In your example, the prosecution would have to prove the defendant intended to cause gbh or death by their actions. The defence may argue that they didn’t, whether that is credible or not is another question.
Remember it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt.
Did the defendants in this case intend to cause gbh or kill the victim, or did they merely intend to get away, and were reckless to the possibility that the victim might get hurt, or even die? If its the latter then its manslaughter not murder.
So the fact that the bastards were so ignorant as to be uncomprehending that if you pulled a man behind a car at 40mph on tarmac, its not cuts and bruises but death is extenuating, making it manslaughter. That's a stretch however you approach it. Scum.
The verdict itself does not matter as much as the sentencing and Braverman will ensure it is a life sentence or as close to it as possible if Boris and Cummings do not think the judge's sentence is tough enough for red wall voters in such a high profile case
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
You’ve gone from “I don’t know the law at all” to “it seems obvious” in one sentence. What? Murder requires an intent to cause gbh or death. Quite a high bar to prove.
Yes I don’t know the law on double jeopardy at all, but it seems obvious the jury were got at. That’s what!
We weren't there. We didn't hear the case. All we see is the newspaper stories.
And remember that in the UK (unlike the US) majority verdicts are needed. So getting at even two jurors wouldn't be enough on its own. Not only that, but if the jury couldn't reach a decision, we'd know that. So if the jury was got at, it has to been 10 of the 12 members who were nobbled.
So, it's possible that had we been in that courtroom, and listened to what the jury heard, then we'd have gone the same way.
You don’t say
I understand why the family's pissed. I'm pissed. You just have to see the bastards' reactions.
Of course they're pissed. In their shoes, I'd be angry beyond belief.
But the jury presumably had their reasons for making the decision they did.
Quite. What were the reasons? Someone has to ask.
As I have explained, you have to prove intention beyond all reasonable doubt, not simply foresight of a risk, even if its a significant risk.
@Pagan2 the BBC article suggests that the Defence argument was that they was no intention to cause said harm, not that they did not realize they were dragging him.
Sorry what did they think that dragging a man along a road would do if they didnt think it would cause harm. Just about everyone has a friend that has come off a motorbike in full protective gear and been subject to road rash
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.
“Intent” is not the same as “recklessness to an outcome”. The law is complicated, it isn’t simple, and your layman analogies are irrelevant here.
Manslaughter can result in a life sentence anyway if the judge deems it suitable. What is the problem?
Ah so in your world putting a noose around someones neck and pulling them up in the air is merely being reckless to an outcome. Death by dragging was just as common an execution method for lynch victims.
I don’t understand your point.
In your example, the prosecution would have to prove the defendant intended to cause gbh or death by their actions. The defence may argue that they didn’t, whether that is credible or not is another question.
Remember it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt.
Did the defendants in this case intend to cause gbh or kill the victim, or did they merely intend to get away, and were reckless to the possibility that the victim might get hurt, or even die? If its the latter then its manslaughter not murder.
My point was shooting someone in the head with a gun is likely to cause serious damage Dragging someone down the road on the end of a rope is going to cause serious damage
You seem to be arguing that on the second count they couldn't forsee that
For the gullible stupidity beyond belief is eminently believable when money or threats or both are involved
@Pagan2 the BBC article suggests that the Defence argument was that they was no intention to cause said harm, not that they did not realize they were dragging him.
Sorry what did they think that dragging a man along a road would do if they didnt think it would cause harm. Just about everyone has a friend that has come off a motorbike in full protective gear and been subject to road rash
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.
“Intent” is not the same as “recklessness to an outcome”. The law is complicated, it isn’t simple, and your layman analogies are irrelevant here.
Manslaughter can result in a life sentence anyway if the judge deems it suitable. What is the problem?
Ah so in your world putting a noose around someones neck and pulling them up in the air is merely being reckless to an outcome. Death by dragging was just as common an execution method for lynch victims.
I don’t understand your point.
In your example, the prosecution would have to prove the defendant intended to cause gbh or death by their actions. The defence may argue that they didn’t, whether that is credible or not is another question.
Remember it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt.
Did the defendants in this case intend to cause gbh or kill the victim, or did they merely intend to get away, and were reckless to the possibility that the victim might get hurt, or even die? If its the latter then its manslaughter not murder.
So the fact that the bastards were so ignorant as to be uncomprehending that if you pulled a man behind a car at 40mph on tarmac, its not cuts and bruises but death is extenuating, making it manslaughter. That's a stretch however you approach it. Scum.
They are scum. But what difference does it make? If the justice system is working as intended, the judge will impose a long prison sentence regardless of whether it was “murder” or “manslaughter”.
Like @HYUFD says the attorney general can also intervene if the government considers the sentence too lenient.
That is cold comfort for the family and for all decent people. The law only runs if the majority thinks it fair. It's why lawyers are viewed with suspicion when it doesn't.
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
You’ve gone from “I don’t know the law at all” to “it seems obvious” in one sentence. What? Murder requires an intent to cause gbh or death. Quite a high bar to prove.
Yes I don’t know the law on double jeopardy at all, but it seems obvious the jury were got at. That’s what!
We weren't there. We didn't hear the case. All we see is the newspaper stories.
And remember that in the UK (unlike the US) majority verdicts are needed. So getting at even two jurors wouldn't be enough on its own. Not only that, but if the jury couldn't reach a decision, we'd know that. So if the jury was got at, it has to been 10 of the 12 members who were nobbled.
So, it's possible that had we been in that courtroom, and listened to what the jury heard, then we'd have gone the same way.
You don’t say
I understand why the family's pissed. I'm pissed. You just have to see the bastards' reactions.
Of course they're pissed. In their shoes, I'd be angry beyond belief.
But the jury presumably had their reasons for making the decision they did.
Quite. What were the reasons? Someone has to ask.
I suspect if you ask the prosecuting lawyer, he will tell you.
The problem is that newspapers exist to sell advertising revenue. You will garner more views and more sales and more revenue by presenting this as a miscarriage of justice (and by the way, this works both ways, as in "how can this person have been imprisoned!") than by giving a measured analysis of why the jury went the way they did.
Comments
1. Labels Johnson as weak on national security and feeds the them of a Conservative Party compromised by its links to Russian oligarchs.
2. Starts to rebuild Labour's reputation on national security as part of the effort to reclaim support in the "Red Wall" seats.
3. Finds another angle to distance himself from Corbyn as he implicitly attacks Corbyn's craven conduct towards Russia, most notably on the novichok attack.
4. Challenges the SNP leader to condemn her predecessor's conduct.
The only possible fly in the ointment I can see for this scenario is a sudden improvement of prospects re COVID - a good vaccine or a good cure, or both - which allows the electorate to concentrate on economic issues. Even that would not guarantee a Trump turn around, but it is clear his attempt to turn BLM into Law and Order is serving only to galvanize his base at the further expense of the 'burbs.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/24/business/brexit-trade-deals-boris-johnson/index.html
This is totally unacceptable. Don't click on the link.
Yes, pretty shit for the Orange One really.
For Texas this time around, one thing that might militate for a Dem victory is that they are investing considerable resources in the State elections to try to win control of the House so that they get a voice in the 2021 redistricting for federal elections. This effort may well help them on the up side of the ticket.
https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1286685649467105280?s=19
And they are correct that individual protection depends very much on correct usage.
But the rationale for everyone wearing them is stopping infecting other people far more than individual protection, and the ongoing trials they reference, I think will struggle to test that.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_clinton-5635.html
Though that's rather because Trafalgar overrated Trump more than others underrated him.
Interestingly given a 3% margin of error and rounding to 1% Trump, all polls were within margin of error.
https://twitter.com/plural_vote/status/1286710656784191489?s=19
Duration of Isolation and Precautions for Adults with COVID-19
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/duration-isolation.html
(It’s notable that infected individuals appear to be most infectious to other people in the few days before they develop obvious symptoms.)
seems pretty dumb on the face of it
There are other possible explanations but seems to me she was probably no longer a carrier when were reunited.
However, the point is that website should not attempt to autoplay videos, let alone fool around with your sound settings. That is completely unacceptable, and users shouldn't have to rely on the web-browser to protect them from such unacceptable behaviour.
I believe that Google removed the option from Chrome to disable video autoplay (presumably to protect Google's ad sales). I just immediately close all websites which try it. In the very rare cases where I really want to look at the page, I use Opera.
There's an extension you can install that works properly. Stop autoplay or something like that, it is called.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768926
Doesn't bode well for self-driving cars if that's the level of their machine learning!
I'd get the extension if you find it annoying.
On Safari I have no issues but that's because Apple take privacy more seriously.
I also use AdGuard.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1286776706532085768?s=21
BTW, in case anyone missed the content, the article makes a good point - where are all the oven-ready trade deals? The world is supposed to be beating a path to our door and falling over themselves to offer us advantageous terms because of .... well.... err... something.
We have secured deals to cover 8% of our trade and we have 5 months to go.
The RCP average had Trump winning, albeit only by 0.4%.
Does Firefox still have its own rendering engine?
there are demanding legal tests which must be met in ‘double jeopardy’ cases, and a special process to be followed. First, the rule has only been reformed for the most serious crimes such as murder and rape. A person cannot face a second trial after being acquitted of shoplifting, no matter how strong the new evidence! For crimes which do fall within the rules, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) must personally consent to an investigation being reopened. The DPP will consider not only the strength of the evidence, but also whether reopening the case is in the public interest.
The investigation can only lead to a fresh prosecution if ‘new and compelling’ evidence is uncovered. To be ‘new’, it must not have been available for the original prosecution. ‘Compelling’ means very strong, so that a conviction is highly probable. If the prosecution believes that a legal test can be met, they have to get the consent of the DPP to make an application to the Court of Appeal. They must then persuade the Court of Appeal to quash the original acquittal and order a retrial. Before making such an order, the Court of Appeal will consider not only the strength of the case, but also the public interest. For example, a new trial will not be granted to make up for incompetence in the original prosecution, or for a case so old that a fair trial is no longer possible.
Hopefully they will be stupid enough to get pissed and confess, therefore generating the "new and compelling" evidence.
Regardless I’m not trying to defend them. I was merely questioning the premise that the jury was “obviously” dodgy for not finding them guilty of murder.
Having ridden a quad bike I do not believe that is feasible
I suspect any jury given a chance to drive a quad bike without the weight dragging on a appropriate length of rope and with it would not have acquitted if not bent.
Of course the jury may not have been shown the difference in which case the prosecution was incompetent
“Intent” is not the same as “recklessness to an outcome”. The law is complicated, it isn’t simple, and your layman analogies are irrelevant here.
Manslaughter can result in a life sentence anyway if the judge deems it suitable. What is the problem?
And remember that in the UK (unlike the US) majority verdicts are needed. So getting at even two jurors wouldn't be enough on its own. Not only that, but if the jury couldn't reach a decision, we'd know that. So if the jury was got at, it has to been 10 of the 12 members who were nobbled.
So, it's possible that had we been in that courtroom, and listened to what the jury heard, then we'd have gone the same way.
We'll work it out if you're up for it. (Also we could user Transferwise)
In your example, the prosecution would have to prove the defendant intended to cause gbh or death by their actions. The defence may argue that they didn’t, whether that is credible or not is another question.
Remember it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt.
Did the defendants in this case intend to cause gbh or kill the victim, or did they merely intend to get away, and were reckless to the possibility that the victim might get hurt, or even die? If its the latter then its manslaughter not murder.
But the jury presumably had their reasons for making the decision they did.
Dragging someone down the road on the end of a rope is going to cause serious damage
You seem to be arguing that on the second count they couldn't forsee that
With murder you have to prove intention. This isn’t America - we don’t have 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree murder.
Like @HYUFD says the attorney general can also intervene if the government considers the sentence too lenient.
Maybe the evidence was not quite so conclusive?
The problem is that newspapers exist to sell advertising revenue. You will garner more views and more sales and more revenue by presenting this as a miscarriage of justice (and by the way, this works both ways, as in "how can this person have been imprisoned!") than by giving a measured analysis of why the jury went the way they did.