| This'll upset a few... on 13:28 - Jan 6 with 2904 views | Herbivore |
| This'll upset a few... on 13:21 - Jan 6 by giant_stow |
shudder. scary bastad. |
He's a proto-fascist, like many of those drafted in to replace more moderate Tories in 2019. Awful people, I sincerely hope the country gets some good sense back and votes them out again at the first opportunity. |  |
|  |
| This'll upset a few... on 13:38 - Jan 6 with 2884 views | giant_stow |
| This'll upset a few... on 13:27 - Jan 6 by lowhouseblue |
the jury system is the great sublime protector of our liberties. juries must be free to come to decisions that they choose to come to on the facts that are in front of them in relation to a specific case and what they hear from the prosecuting counsel, from the defence counsel and from the judge. |
Bang on. |  |
| |
| This'll upset a few... on 13:53 - Jan 6 with 2856 views | chicoazul |
| This'll upset a few... on 13:27 - Jan 6 by lowhouseblue |
the jury system is the great sublime protector of our liberties. juries must be free to come to decisions that they choose to come to on the facts that are in front of them in relation to a specific case and what they hear from the prosecuting counsel, from the defence counsel and from the judge. |
Hahaha |  |
| |
| This'll upset a few... on 13:54 - Jan 6 with 2852 views | Herbivore |
| This'll upset a few... on 13:27 - Jan 6 by lowhouseblue |
the jury system is the great sublime protector of our liberties. juries must be free to come to decisions that they choose to come to on the facts that are in front of them in relation to a specific case and what they hear from the prosecuting counsel, from the defence counsel and from the judge. |
It was good to see Rees-Mogg standing up to some of the backbenchers, credit where it's due. | |
| |
| This'll upset a few... on 14:02 - Jan 6 with 2833 views | tractordownsouth |
| This'll upset a few... on 13:54 - Jan 6 by Herbivore |
It was good to see Rees-Mogg standing up to some of the backbenchers, credit where it's due. |
Stopped clocks, twice a day etc |  |
| |
| This'll upset a few... on 14:34 - Jan 6 with 2807 views | SouthBucksBlue |
| This'll upset a few... on 19:50 - Jan 5 by HARRY10 |
Anything that upsets the 'wokey cokeys' is fine by me.
Their paranoia about this new concept (along with cancel) is a joy to behold, though very difficult to keep up with.
Their previous sheep like bleats about political correctness and how mad everything was, seems to have been forgotten in their desperation to label anything that suggests the 21st century as 'woke'.
Christ knows what they will make of India demanding more visas in return for a trade deal. There could be an outbreak of spontaneous combustion among these bigots, nevermind the number of computer screens covered in spittle.
"Oh the wokey cokeys,goose step, arm raised ra ra ra " |
The thing is that the jury seems to have returned a verdict based on sentiment and not law as it clearly was criminal damage. That’s not the intention of trial by jury. |  | | |
| This'll upset a few... on 14:42 - Jan 6 with 2791 views | The_Romford_Blue |
| This'll upset a few... on 13:28 - Jan 6 by Herbivore |
He's a proto-fascist, like many of those drafted in to replace more moderate Tories in 2019. Awful people, I sincerely hope the country gets some good sense back and votes them out again at the first opportunity. |
The fact that Hunt was voted in is genuinely an embarrassment to the town of Ipswich.
Also a bit stunned to find myself in total agreement with JRM. Can’t say that’s ever happened before on anything. |  |
| |
| This'll upset a few... on 15:06 - Jan 6 with 2762 views | XYZ |
| This'll upset a few... on 14:34 - Jan 6 by SouthBucksBlue |
The thing is that the jury seems to have returned a verdict based on sentiment and not law as it clearly was criminal damage. That’s not the intention of trial by jury. |
There's a judge in the room to decide on the law.
This case is exactly what trial by jury is all about. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| This'll upset a few... on 15:13 - Jan 6 with 2738 views | Darth_Koont |
| This'll upset a few... on 15:06 - Jan 6 by XYZ |
There's a judge in the room to decide on the law.
This case is exactly what trial by jury is all about. |
Indeed.
And as the jury came from the Bristol area, then they’d also be fully aware that this has been 20 years coming. Hard to even assess it as a crime with a victim or as criminal damage. |  |
| |
| This'll upset a few... on 15:15 - Jan 6 with 2725 views | Kropotkin123 |
| This'll upset a few... on 18:10 - Jan 5 by BlueBadger |
Wait till some on here find out one of them is called 'Skuse'.
They'll be calling for the return of hanging, drawing and quarteering. |
Guess they caught Skuse napping again...
Surprised Skuse didn't concede at trial though, must have a quality defence behind him. |  |
| Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top. | | Poll: | Would you rather | | Blog: | Round Four: Eagle |
| |
| This'll upset a few... on 15:30 - Jan 6 with 2702 views | XYZ |
| This'll upset a few... on 15:13 - Jan 6 by Darth_Koont |
Indeed.
And as the jury came from the Bristol area, then they’d also be fully aware that this has been 20 years coming. Hard to even assess it as a crime with a victim or as criminal damage. |
Yes, it sounds like the accused's barrister did a fantastic job, which included stressing the particular local issues and community. | | | |
| This'll upset a few... on 15:42 - Jan 6 with 2679 views | Herbivore |
| This'll upset a few... on 14:34 - Jan 6 by SouthBucksBlue |
The thing is that the jury seems to have returned a verdict based on sentiment and not law as it clearly was criminal damage. That’s not the intention of trial by jury. |
The jury heard all the evidence and all of the arguments from both sets of lawyers, I'd suggest they are better placed than you to decide whether or not the defendents should be convicted of a criminal offence. [Post edited 6 Jan 2022 15:44]
| |
| |
| This'll upset a few... on 16:08 - Jan 6 with 2661 views | SouthBucksBlue |
| This'll upset a few... on 15:42 - Jan 6 by Herbivore |
The jury heard all the evidence and all of the arguments from both sets of lawyers, I'd suggest they are better placed than you to decide whether or not the defendents should be convicted of a criminal offence. [Post edited 6 Jan 2022 15:44]
|
I’m no expert and if the judge directed the jury accordingly then that’s fair enough.
However it’s pretty obvious that criminal damage occurred and as far as I know there’s no doubt that the accused were responsible. Are you suggesting that the purpose of trial by jury is to decide if someone should be convicted irrespective of whether they committed a criminal offence or not? | | | |
| This'll upset a few... on 16:21 - Jan 6 with 2629 views | Herbivore |
| This'll upset a few... on 16:08 - Jan 6 by SouthBucksBlue |
I’m no expert and if the judge directed the jury accordingly then that’s fair enough.
However it’s pretty obvious that criminal damage occurred and as far as I know there’s no doubt that the accused were responsible. Are you suggesting that the purpose of trial by jury is to decide if someone should be convicted irrespective of whether they committed a criminal offence or not? |
Are you saying we should be convicting people on your belief that "it's pretty obvious" the defendants committed a crime? That's a rather slippery slope. Why bother having trials at all? | |
| |
| This'll upset a few... on 17:40 - Jan 6 with 2581 views | HARRY10 |
| This'll upset a few... on 08:12 - Jan 6 by Steve_M |
That's a rather partial picture, the suggestion that bombing - and the Americans were bombing through the day as well - had no impact on German manufacturing is fanciful. Of course, Allied propaganda exaggerated effects and 1940s aerial bombardment was an inexact process despite the development of pathfinder forces.
It may have been a factor in continuing the war but a minor one, others were far more important, not least the combination of fanaticism and fear that Hitler still inspired right until 1945. Even very late in the war there were savage reprisals aimed at countering defeatism amongst the German population. See Kershaw's 'The End' for examples. |
Aha, the old 'male it up and reply to that instead' ploy.
I did not claim that bombing had NO effect on German manufacturing, What my actual words were "bombing had little reals strategic impact". Clearly not the same.
The US 8th air force did not have much of a strategic bombing force, so they continued with what they had.
"Allied propaganda exaggerated effects". Again you twist my words. I was writing about the information as told to air crew, bot Allied propoganda, as seen by - "This was kept from Bomber crew so as to keep up moral. They were fed false claims. "
But at least you did acknowledge my point "It also contributed to the Germans wanting to fight to the bitter end" that it contributed. Not it was the cause. The Allies call for unconditional surrender was also a contributory factor.
You will struggle to find anyone worthy of his salt who does not think the resources could not have been diverted elsewhere as, "Enormous numbers of men and resources were wasted". And I would refer you to Harris's actually words where it is clear that military targets were never his intent.
So maybe if you reply again, could I ask that you reply to what I have actually posted. Nothing wrong with taking a contrary position, but that should not be through misrepresenting what the other person has stated.
And yes, I have listened to the audio recording of The End* - all 18 hours of it. Better than the radio while driving to and from work. To that I would suggest you have a listen to Brothers in Arms read by Al Murray (the comedian) - especially the last couple of chapters which highlight the loses from panzerfausts, by soldiers able to hide in the rubble, and the crews comments on that rubble. There is also similar in the Tank Action - you can listen to one book with a free trial - Audible.co.uk
* the incident that stood out is the public hanging of a young lad who (ironically) tried to stop the pointless bombing of his city - to escape, be caught and then dragged back to be hung - within the last few weeks | | | |
| This'll upset a few... on 18:04 - Jan 6 with 2555 views | jeera |
| This'll upset a few... on 16:08 - Jan 6 by SouthBucksBlue |
I’m no expert and if the judge directed the jury accordingly then that’s fair enough.
However it’s pretty obvious that criminal damage occurred and as far as I know there’s no doubt that the accused were responsible. Are you suggesting that the purpose of trial by jury is to decide if someone should be convicted irrespective of whether they committed a criminal offence or not? |
Mitigating circumstances? That's what the hearing is for.
It's a bizarre angle to take to decide that the jury and judge directly involved were somehow wrong here.
As others have said, the statue's removal was only a matter of time and was long campaigned for.
It's incredible how many people seem out out by this; most of whom have possibly never even heard of that slave trader and would also probably never see the sodding thing in their lives. |  |
| |
| This'll upset a few... on 18:11 - Jan 6 with 2546 views | SouthBucksBlue |
| This'll upset a few... on 18:04 - Jan 6 by jeera |
Mitigating circumstances? That's what the hearing is for.
It's a bizarre angle to take to decide that the jury and judge directly involved were somehow wrong here.
As others have said, the statue's removal was only a matter of time and was long campaigned for.
It's incredible how many people seem out out by this; most of whom have possibly never even heard of that slave trader and would also probably never see the sodding thing in their lives. |
Are you sure?
I would have thought that mitigating circumstances have more relevance to the sentence than the verdict. | | | |
| This'll upset a few... on 18:20 - Jan 6 with 2534 views | SouthBucksBlue |
| This'll upset a few... on 16:21 - Jan 6 by Herbivore |
Are you saying we should be convicting people on your belief that "it's pretty obvious" the defendants committed a crime? That's a rather slippery slope. Why bother having trials at all? |
(Sorry didn’t mean to down vote)
No. What I’m saying is that if a crime has been committed and there’s no reasonable doubt that the accused were responsible, it’s not up to the jury decide that the Zeitgeist justifies the actions so no crime was committed. | | | |
| This'll upset a few... on 18:21 - Jan 6 with 2534 views | Pinewoodblue |
| This'll upset a few... on 18:04 - Jan 6 by jeera |
Mitigating circumstances? That's what the hearing is for.
It's a bizarre angle to take to decide that the jury and judge directly involved were somehow wrong here.
As others have said, the statue's removal was only a matter of time and was long campaigned for.
It's incredible how many people seem out out by this; most of whom have possibly never even heard of that slave trader and would also probably never see the sodding thing in their lives. |
Over the years trial by jury has been removed for more and more offences simply because the right result wasn't being achieved as you were more likely to be found not guilty by a jury than you were by magistrates.
I've found myself doing Jury Service wherever I've been living. serving time in Ipswich, Cambridge and Norwich. One of the problems I found was getting people to distinguish between the role of the Jury and that of the Judge. Had situations, more than once, when some jurors have made comments like "I don't want to send him to prison" once you point out the Judge decides on the punishment they change their mind.
It is scary how just one or two people on a Jury can change others minds.
Always thought mitigating circumstances related to the sentence more than to deciding if guilty./not guilty. |  |
| |
| This'll upset a few... on 18:26 - Jan 6 with 2522 views | Herbivore |
| This'll upset a few... on 18:20 - Jan 6 by SouthBucksBlue |
(Sorry didn’t mean to down vote)
No. What I’m saying is that if a crime has been committed and there’s no reasonable doubt that the accused were responsible, it’s not up to the jury decide that the Zeitgeist justifies the actions so no crime was committed. |
Clearly the jury felt that a crime wasn't committed beyond reasonable doubt, and they have heard all the evidence and legal arguments on both sides. Something neither you or I have done, so I am not sure we are well placed to second guess their verdict and suggest that they got it wrong. | |
| |
| This'll upset a few... on 18:58 - Jan 6 with 2468 views | Charlie_pl_baxter |
| This'll upset a few... on 17:40 - Jan 6 by HARRY10 |
Aha, the old 'male it up and reply to that instead' ploy.
I did not claim that bombing had NO effect on German manufacturing, What my actual words were "bombing had little reals strategic impact". Clearly not the same.
The US 8th air force did not have much of a strategic bombing force, so they continued with what they had.
"Allied propaganda exaggerated effects". Again you twist my words. I was writing about the information as told to air crew, bot Allied propoganda, as seen by - "This was kept from Bomber crew so as to keep up moral. They were fed false claims. "
But at least you did acknowledge my point "It also contributed to the Germans wanting to fight to the bitter end" that it contributed. Not it was the cause. The Allies call for unconditional surrender was also a contributory factor.
You will struggle to find anyone worthy of his salt who does not think the resources could not have been diverted elsewhere as, "Enormous numbers of men and resources were wasted". And I would refer you to Harris's actually words where it is clear that military targets were never his intent.
So maybe if you reply again, could I ask that you reply to what I have actually posted. Nothing wrong with taking a contrary position, but that should not be through misrepresenting what the other person has stated.
And yes, I have listened to the audio recording of The End* - all 18 hours of it. Better than the radio while driving to and from work. To that I would suggest you have a listen to Brothers in Arms read by Al Murray (the comedian) - especially the last couple of chapters which highlight the loses from panzerfausts, by soldiers able to hide in the rubble, and the crews comments on that rubble. There is also similar in the Tank Action - you can listen to one book with a free trial - Audible.co.uk
* the incident that stood out is the public hanging of a young lad who (ironically) tried to stop the pointless bombing of his city - to escape, be caught and then dragged back to be hung - within the last few weeks |
If you want to hear something really nasty, Malcolm Gladwell's podcast about the US fire bombing of Tokyo takes some beating. While I am sure we can all agree the Allies cause was the right one, let's not be under any illusions that our methods of war in WW2 (or indeed any other) were anything other than brutal. |  |
| |
| This'll upset a few... on 19:23 - Jan 6 with 2451 views | Bluedicea |
| This'll upset a few... on 18:26 - Jan 6 by Herbivore |
Clearly the jury felt that a crime wasn't committed beyond reasonable doubt, and they have heard all the evidence and legal arguments on both sides. Something neither you or I have done, so I am not sure we are well placed to second guess their verdict and suggest that they got it wrong. |
The crime was committed, there is no doubt about that. The reason they stood trial was because there was clear video and photo graphic evidence of those involved, and they had acted in way that contravened the laws and statutes of this country and that particular city and county. That is not disputed. The reason for the trial was to see if they should be punished for the crime or whether their actions that day were somewhat justified given the situation and subject.
It's a nuance of law. Committing crimes doesn't necessarily mean you will be prosecuted for it, it all depends on the mitigating circumstances involved.
For example, punching someone in the face to stop them stabbing someone, is still assault, but would rarely be prosecuted because the circumstances involved is preventing injuries to others. |  |
| What is the use of knowing about everything else, when you do not yet know who you are. |
| |
| This'll upset a few... on 21:11 - Jan 6 with 2386 views | Herbivore |
| This'll upset a few... on 19:23 - Jan 6 by Bluedicea |
The crime was committed, there is no doubt about that. The reason they stood trial was because there was clear video and photo graphic evidence of those involved, and they had acted in way that contravened the laws and statutes of this country and that particular city and county. That is not disputed. The reason for the trial was to see if they should be punished for the crime or whether their actions that day were somewhat justified given the situation and subject.
It's a nuance of law. Committing crimes doesn't necessarily mean you will be prosecuted for it, it all depends on the mitigating circumstances involved.
For example, punching someone in the face to stop them stabbing someone, is still assault, but would rarely be prosecuted because the circumstances involved is preventing injuries to others. |
That's not right. Punishment is determined by the judge, not the jury. The jury's job is to determine whether or not someone is guilty of the crime of which they've been accused. Having heard the evidence and the arguments the jury's verdict was that the defendents weren't guilty. | |
| |
| This'll upset a few... on 21:32 - Jan 6 with 2368 views | Bluedicea |
| This'll upset a few... on 21:11 - Jan 6 by Herbivore |
That's not right. Punishment is determined by the judge, not the jury. The jury's job is to determine whether or not someone is guilty of the crime of which they've been accused. Having heard the evidence and the arguments the jury's verdict was that the defendents weren't guilty. |
You are wrong. I never stated the jury hands out punishment, so please do not misquote me.
The jury is there to decide if you should receive punishment, which is the decision of guilty or not guilty to receive punishment for the events laid out to them, the judgethen hands out the sentence.
The crime has been committed or not already. Going to court is to decide whether the defendant is guilty of the crime or not, it's not the same as what you are saying, because there was still a crime committed just the person wasn't convicted for it doesn't mean there was no crime involved.
As I said it's a nuance of law. Either you understand or you don't. | |
| What is the use of knowing about everything else, when you do not yet know who you are. |
| |
| This'll upset a few... on 22:29 - Jan 6 with 2326 views | Herbivore |
| This'll upset a few... on 21:32 - Jan 6 by Bluedicea |
You are wrong. I never stated the jury hands out punishment, so please do not misquote me.
The jury is there to decide if you should receive punishment, which is the decision of guilty or not guilty to receive punishment for the events laid out to them, the judgethen hands out the sentence.
The crime has been committed or not already. Going to court is to decide whether the defendant is guilty of the crime or not, it's not the same as what you are saying, because there was still a crime committed just the person wasn't convicted for it doesn't mean there was no crime involved.
As I said it's a nuance of law. Either you understand or you don't. |
Clearly you don't. Or you do but you're just explaining yourself really badly. [Post edited 6 Jan 2022 22:31]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
