Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More a Lounge Subject that Politics "Well perhaps politics and news should be aligned. Lounge is more playful stuff. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lucy Letby jury now out for a retrial of baby previous jury could not decide on. Man who threatened to abduct and r@pe Holly Willoughby, defence states he would never have had the opportunity or means to act on his fantasies and that previous false imprisonment and attempted kidn@p should not be held against him. WTF? "What is it that makes you say WTF? Tbh on the second point his defense have to try and push that point, not saying he doesn't sound like a complete wrong un.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lucy Letby jury now out for a retrial of baby previous jury could not decide on. Man who threatened to abduct and r@pe Holly Willoughby, defence states he would never have had the opportunity or means to act on his fantasies and that previous false imprisonment and attempted kidn@p should not be held against him. WTF?
What is it that makes you say WTF?
Tbh on the second point his defense have to try and push that point, not saying he doesn't sound like a complete wrong un.."The second case. Surely previous crimes get discounted before it goes to court (or I watch too much tv). Just shocked the point was made to the jurors as it indicates these things aren't just fantasy. The man is a danger and may have moved towards another woman if opportunity arose. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lucy Letby jury now out for a retrial of baby previous jury could not decide on. Man who threatened to abduct and r@pe Holly Willoughby, defence states he would never have had the opportunity or means to act on his fantasies and that previous false imprisonment and attempted kidn@p should not be held against him. WTF?
What is it that makes you say WTF?
Tbh on the second point his defense have to try and push that point, not saying he doesn't sound like a complete wrong un..
The second case. Surely previous crimes get discounted before it goes to court (or I watch too much tv). Just shocked the point was made to the jurors as it indicates these things aren't just fantasy. The man is a danger and may have moved towards another woman if opportunity arose."I have seen defense lawyers making lot more ridiculous points. Their job is to defend the accused. If the case is really hard to defend, they end up restoring to such crazy arguments | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lucy Letby jury now out for a retrial of baby previous jury could not decide on. Man who threatened to abduct and r@pe Holly Willoughby, defence states he would never have had the opportunity or means to act on his fantasies and that previous false imprisonment and attempted kidn@p should not be held against him. WTF?
What is it that makes you say WTF?
Tbh on the second point his defense have to try and push that point, not saying he doesn't sound like a complete wrong un..
The second case. Surely previous crimes get discounted before it goes to court (or I watch too much tv). Just shocked the point was made to the jurors as it indicates these things aren't just fantasy. The man is a danger and may have moved towards another woman if opportunity arose."I'm a bit torn that previous is used to convict someone on a new charge which might be a totally different issue, essentially the case must be judged on the evidence for the particular charge they are in the dock again .. But then when they've a string of similar offences and convictions which is the same I see why the prosecution and us the public don't want them walking.. Letby's defence have a duty to represent her to the best of their abilities etc but in that case there's also the poor parents of whichever child she's up for now who deserve an answer .. It's a difficult one, I'm not sure I could be impartial tbh and do feel for the jury too having to hear the awful evidence.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Some people, and I know lots of people are against the morality of this. But some cases are so airtight, and the perpetrators are so obviously guilty as hell and totally evil. I don’t see why our tax money should be spent accommodating them while they live the rest of their lives in relative comfort. Much more comfort than that afforded to their victims and the families that are left behind. For example, and I could mention a good few more, Peter Sutcliffe. We should, imho, have brought back the death penalty for him and the likes of him. I don’t care whether that would be a lethal injection or a hang man’s noose. But to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds, making sure he is comfortable, protected from harm, and given all the health treatment whenever he needed it, doesn’t make sense to me." It will cost more to give a person the death penalty than it would to imprison them for life. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Some people, and I know lots of people are against the morality of this. But some cases are so airtight, and the perpetrators are so obviously guilty as hell and totally evil. I don’t see why our tax money should be spent accommodating them while they live the rest of their lives in relative comfort. Much more comfort than that afforded to their victims and the families that are left behind. For example, and I could mention a good few more, Peter Sutcliffe. We should, imho, have brought back the death penalty for him and the likes of him. I don’t care whether that would be a lethal injection or a hang man’s noose. But to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds, making sure he is comfortable, protected from harm, and given all the health treatment whenever he needed it, doesn’t make sense to me. It will cost more to give a person the death penalty than it would to imprison them for life." Please enlighten me. I'm sure hanging would be deemed barbaric nowadays. I certainly would vote for the death penalty for serial killers where there is copious forensic evidence. However, I couldn't set up the injections. So do I really want that? I suppose when we know it's now on any political agenda, it's easier to say than delve into things and scrutinise the process. Over to you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Some people, and I know lots of people are against the morality of this. But some cases are so airtight, and the perpetrators are so obviously guilty as hell and totally evil. I don’t see why our tax money should be spent accommodating them while they live the rest of their lives in relative comfort. Much more comfort than that afforded to their victims and the families that are left behind. For example, and I could mention a good few more, Peter Sutcliffe. We should, imho, have brought back the death penalty for him and the likes of him. I don’t care whether that would be a lethal injection or a hang man’s noose. But to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds, making sure he is comfortable, protected from harm, and given all the health treatment whenever he needed it, doesn’t make sense to me. It will cost more to give a person the death penalty than it would to imprison them for life." Really? I'm not arguing it wouldn't but how do we get to that conclusion? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Some people, and I know lots of people are against the morality of this. But some cases are so airtight, and the perpetrators are so obviously guilty as hell and totally evil. I don’t see why our tax money should be spent accommodating them while they live the rest of their lives in relative comfort. Much more comfort than that afforded to their victims and the families that are left behind. For example, and I could mention a good few more, Peter Sutcliffe. We should, imho, have brought back the death penalty for him and the likes of him. I don’t care whether that would be a lethal injection or a hang man’s noose. But to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds, making sure he is comfortable, protected from harm, and given all the health treatment whenever he needed it, doesn’t make sense to me. It will cost more to give a person the death penalty than it would to imprison them for life. Really? I'm not arguing it wouldn't but how do we get to that conclusion?" The appeals process is so long and would go to so many courts that the cost of appeals in addition to the years of imprisonment whilst waiting for a final verdict would increase the cost exponentially. There would also be hesitation in administering the death penalty incase it was proven to be wrongful after the event, this would result in large payouts and ultimately would mean they sit on death row for a lifetime, racking up appeals and costs too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Some people, and I know lots of people are against the morality of this. But some cases are so airtight, and the perpetrators are so obviously guilty as hell and totally evil. I don’t see why our tax money should be spent accommodating them while they live the rest of their lives in relative comfort. Much more comfort than that afforded to their victims and the families that are left behind. For example, and I could mention a good few more, Peter Sutcliffe. We should, imho, have brought back the death penalty for him and the likes of him. I don’t care whether that would be a lethal injection or a hang man’s noose. But to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds, making sure he is comfortable, protected from harm, and given all the health treatment whenever he needed it, doesn’t make sense to me. It will cost more to give a person the death penalty than it would to imprison them for life. Please enlighten me. I'm sure hanging would be deemed barbaric nowadays. I certainly would vote for the death penalty for serial killers where there is copious forensic evidence. However, I couldn't set up the injections. So do I really want that? I suppose when we know it's now on any political agenda, it's easier to say than delve into things and scrutinise the process. Over to you." Answered above this post | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Some people, and I know lots of people are against the morality of this. But some cases are so airtight, and the perpetrators are so obviously guilty as hell and totally evil. I don’t see why our tax money should be spent accommodating them while they live the rest of their lives in relative comfort. Much more comfort than that afforded to their victims and the families that are left behind. For example, and I could mention a good few more, Peter Sutcliffe. We should, imho, have brought back the death penalty for him and the likes of him. I don’t care whether that would be a lethal injection or a hang man’s noose. But to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds, making sure he is comfortable, protected from harm, and given all the health treatment whenever he needed it, doesn’t make sense to me. It will cost more to give a person the death penalty than it would to imprison them for life. Really? I'm not arguing it wouldn't but how do we get to that conclusion? The appeals process is so long and would go to so many courts that the cost of appeals in addition to the years of imprisonment whilst waiting for a final verdict would increase the cost exponentially. There would also be hesitation in administering the death penalty incase it was proven to be wrongful after the event, this would result in large payouts and ultimately would mean they sit on death row for a lifetime, racking up appeals and costs too. " Got it. Makes sense | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What was the point of the Letby trial? She's already serving 14 life sentences. What have we gained now that she's had another charge added?" A record of the offence | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What was the point of the Letby trial? She's already serving 14 life sentences. What have we gained now that she's had another charge added?" Not we, the parents. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Some people, and I know lots of people are against the morality of this. But some cases are so airtight, and the perpetrators are so obviously guilty as hell and totally evil. I don’t see why our tax money should be spent accommodating them while they live the rest of their lives in relative comfort. Much more comfort than that afforded to their victims and the families that are left behind. For example, and I could mention a good few more, Peter Sutcliffe. We should, imho, have brought back the death penalty for him and the likes of him. I don’t care whether that would be a lethal injection or a hang man’s noose. But to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds, making sure he is comfortable, protected from harm, and given all the health treatment whenever he needed it, doesn’t make sense to me. It will cost more to give a person the death penalty than it would to imprison them for life. Really? I'm not arguing it wouldn't but how do we get to that conclusion? The appeals process is so long and would go to so many courts that the cost of appeals in addition to the years of imprisonment whilst waiting for a final verdict would increase the cost exponentially. There would also be hesitation in administering the death penalty incase it was proven to be wrongful after the event, this would result in large payouts and ultimately would mean they sit on death row for a lifetime, racking up appeals and costs too. " Hence my point of copious evidence against serial killers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What was the point of the Letby trial? She's already serving 14 life sentences. What have we gained now that she's had another charge added? Not we, the parents." This.. After what they've been through it's right they've at least had the truth.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What was the point of the Letby trial? She's already serving 14 life sentences. What have we gained now that she's had another charge added?" "Not we, the parents." "This.. After what they've been through it's right they've at least had the truth.." I can see that. So is it right that 12 jurors have had their lives changed for the worse by having to sit through all the harrowing evidence, and the government has had to pay out hundreds of thousands of pounds, just to make the parents feel a tiny bit better? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Some people, and I know lots of people are against the morality of this. But some cases are so airtight, and the perpetrators are so obviously guilty as hell and totally evil. I don’t see why our tax money should be spent accommodating them while they live the rest of their lives in relative comfort. Much more comfort than that afforded to their victims and the families that are left behind. For example, and I could mention a good few more, Peter Sutcliffe. We should, imho, have brought back the death penalty for him and the likes of him. I don’t care whether that would be a lethal injection or a hang man’s noose. But to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds, making sure he is comfortable, protected from harm, and given all the health treatment whenever he needed it, doesn’t make sense to me. It will cost more to give a person the death penalty than it would to imprison them for life. Really? I'm not arguing it wouldn't but how do we get to that conclusion? The appeals process is so long and would go to so many courts that the cost of appeals in addition to the years of imprisonment whilst waiting for a final verdict would increase the cost exponentially. There would also be hesitation in administering the death penalty incase it was proven to be wrongful after the event, this would result in large payouts and ultimately would mean they sit on death row for a lifetime, racking up appeals and costs too. Hence my point of copious evidence against serial killers." Obviously we wouldn’t be able to do the is while still members of the ECHR, but I seriously believe that we should leave that organisation. For years now they have overruled our courts and costed us millions in appeals etc. I was just thinking about scum like Russel Bishop, a definite death penalty candidate. Why should we be made to let the likes of him even breathe our air? There are many pieces of human waste like him still being kept alive by our inept judiciary system. It is time to show people who ra and murder children that they will have no rights, human or otherwise. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What was the point of the Letby trial? She's already serving 14 life sentences. What have we gained now that she's had another charge added? Not we, the parents. This.. After what they've been through it's right they've at least had the truth.. I can see that. So is it right that 12 jurors have had their lives changed for the worse by having to sit through all the harrowing evidence, and the government has had to pay out hundreds of thousands of pounds, just to make the parents feel a tiny bit better?" That's cold. It's about justice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What was the point of the Letby trial? She's already serving 14 life sentences. What have we gained now that she's had another charge added? Not we, the parents. This.. After what they've been through it's right they've at least had the truth.. I can see that. So is it right that 12 jurors have had their lives changed for the worse by having to sit through all the harrowing evidence, and the government has had to pay out hundreds of thousands of pounds, just to make the parents feel a tiny bit better?" Absolutely yes.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What was the point of the Letby trial? She's already serving 14 life sentences. What have we gained now that she's had another charge added?" "Not we, the parents." "This.. After what they've been through it's right they've at least had the truth.." "I can see that. So is it right that 12 jurors have had their lives changed for the worse by having to sit through all the harrowing evidence, and the government has had to pay out hundreds of thousands of pounds, just to make the parents feel a tiny bit better?" "Absolutely yes.." I'm not an emotional person, so I genuinely can't understand why you think that way. But I respect your right to have that opinion. I'd be interested to hear if other people think that the balance between harm and help was correct in the decision to re-run this trial. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What was the point of the Letby trial? She's already serving 14 life sentences. What have we gained now that she's had another charge added? Not we, the parents. This.. After what they've been through it's right they've at least had the truth.. I can see that. So is it right that 12 jurors have had their lives changed for the worse by having to sit through all the harrowing evidence, and the government has had to pay out hundreds of thousands of pounds, just to make the parents feel a tiny bit better? Absolutely yes.. I'm not an emotional person, so I genuinely can't understand why you think that way. But I respect your right to have that opinion. I'd be interested to hear if other people think that the balance between harm and help was correct in the decision to re-run this trial." We can't for an instance put ourselves in the position that the parents have been through, no matter what our own experience's as parents and grandparents have been so far.. In the grand scheme of things the cost is utterly irrelevant, and as for the jury and what they have had to listen to etc as part of their civic duty in this case I can only relate to doing that twice and try to put myself in their shoes and yes it will have been traumatic at times but I tend to take the view that some of them will see it as worthwhile on their behalf to be part of at least answering the questions that must have haunted the parents so far.. With such things emotions whilst very pertinent can tend to get in the way of doing that duty as hard as that can be .. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Obviously we wouldn’t be able to do the is while still members of the ECHR, but I seriously believe that we should leave that organisation. For years now they have overruled our courts and costed us millions in appeals etc. " Before you crucify the ECHR any further : . The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is an international treaty between the States of the Council of Europe. The United Kingdom was one of the States that drafted the ECHR and was one of the first States to ratify it in 1951. The Convention came into force in 1953. . The United Kingdom played an important role in the birth of the ECHR, with British lawyers integral to the drafting of the text, and Winston Churchill a key early advocate. . The ECHR guaranteed people’s fundamental human rights in law for the first time. The rights we are all accustomed to come from the UK signing the Convention. . Since the UK signed the Convention in 1951, it has protected us from things like t**t*re, killing, and sl@***ry and assures our freedom of speech, assembly, religion, privacy and much more. . Now I don't know about you, but for a very few cases where it protects a "bad person" (who is still entitled to protection), there are millions more who are protected and they are good folks. . Withdrawing from the ECHR is akin to throwing out the baby with the bath water. You'd expose millions of potential innocents (population of the UK infact), just so you could deny a few others their own protection ? . Corporal Hicks may have allegedly said, "“I say we take off and nuke the entire ECHR from orbit. It's the only way to be sure" but don't you think that's a little extreme ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Obviously we wouldn’t be able to do the is while still members of the ECHR, but I seriously believe that we should leave that organisation. For years now they have overruled our courts and costed us millions in appeals etc. Before you crucify the ECHR any further : . The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is an international treaty between the States of the Council of Europe. The United Kingdom was one of the States that drafted the ECHR and was one of the first States to ratify it in 1951. The Convention came into force in 1953. . The United Kingdom played an important role in the birth of the ECHR, with British lawyers integral to the drafting of the text, and Winston Churchill a key early advocate. . The ECHR guaranteed people’s fundamental human rights in law for the first time. The rights we are all accustomed to come from the UK signing the Convention. . Since the UK signed the Convention in 1951, it has protected us from things like t**t*re, killing, and sl@***ry and assures our freedom of speech, assembly, religion, privacy and much more. . Now I don't know about you, but for a very few cases where it protects a "bad person" (who is still entitled to protection), there are millions more who are protected and they are good folks. . Withdrawing from the ECHR is akin to throwing out the baby with the bath water. You'd expose millions of potential innocents (population of the UK infact), just so you could deny a few others their own protection ? . Corporal Hicks may have allegedly said, "“I say we take off and nuke the entire ECHR from orbit. It's the only way to be sure" but don't you think that's a little extreme ?" I have no intention of ‘crucifying’ them. I just think that they have had their time and are now out of date. If Winston Churchill was still alive I would say the same about him. They have repeatedly rallied against our judiciary on the side of illegal immigrants, and for this reason alone, I would kick them into touch. We, as a nation, have to move forward. We cannot allow anyone to continually drag us back. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What was the point of the Letby trial? She's already serving 14 life sentences. What have we gained now that she's had another charge added?" Yeah that point has popped up a lot in the daily mail today, waste of tax payers money etc. Seriously I cannot comprehend why anyone would ask that question, isn't the answer obvious? So the parents get answers and hopefully closure. What if it was your baby? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Some people, and I know lots of people are against the morality of this. But some cases are so airtight, and the perpetrators are so obviously guilty as hell and totally evil. I don’t see why our tax money should be spent accommodating them while they live the rest of their lives in relative comfort. Much more comfort than that afforded to their victims and the families that are left behind. For example, and I could mention a good few more, Peter Sutcliffe. We should, imho, have brought back the death penalty for him and the likes of him. I don’t care whether that would be a lethal injection or a hang man’s noose. But to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds, making sure he is comfortable, protected from harm, and given all the health treatment whenever he needed it, doesn’t make sense to me. It will cost more to give a person the death penalty than it would to imprison them for life. Really? I'm not arguing it wouldn't but how do we get to that conclusion? The appeals process is so long and would go to so many courts that the cost of appeals in addition to the years of imprisonment whilst waiting for a final verdict would increase the cost exponentially. There would also be hesitation in administering the death penalty incase it was proven to be wrongful after the event, this would result in large payouts and ultimately would mean they sit on death row for a lifetime, racking up appeals and costs too. Hence my point of copious evidence against serial killers. Obviously we wouldn’t be able to do the is while still members of the ECHR, but I seriously believe that we should leave that organisation. For years now they have overruled our courts and costed us millions in appeals etc. I was just thinking about scum like Russel Bishop, a definite death penalty candidate. Why should we be made to let the likes of him even breathe our air? There are many pieces of human waste like him still being kept alive by our inept judiciary system. It is time to show people who ra and murder children that they will have no rights, human or otherwise." OK about a year ago two british soldiers went AWOL to fighjt with the ukrainians. They were captured by the Russians. The ECHR stepped in and got them released in the interest of Russian/UK relations. Take from that what you want? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have no intention of ‘crucifying’ them. I just think that they have had their time and are now out of date. If Winston Churchill was still alive I would say the same about him. They have repeatedly rallied against our judiciary on the side of illegal immigrants, and for this reason alone, I would kick them into touch. We, as a nation, have to move forward. We cannot allow anyone to continually drag us back." . You know the saying "The Road To Hell is Paved With Good Intentions?" . Not that the next example ever had any "good intentions" to start with, but in the first six years of Adolf Hitler's dictatorship, Jews felt the effects of more than 400 decrees and regulations on all aspects of their lives. The regulations gradually but systematically took away their rights and property, transforming them from citizens into outcasts. Many of the laws were national ones issued by the German administration, affecting all Jews. State, regional, and municipal officials also issued many decrees in their own communities. As Nazi leaders prepared for war in Europe, antisemitic legislation in Germany and Austria paved the way for more radical persecution of Jews. . Enacting plans to remove the protections of "illegal immigrants" would parallel the UK on same path as above. Is that humane ? . Instead of punitive action, why not create legitimate routes to provide safe and easy access ? That is humane. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have no intention of ‘crucifying’ them. I just think that they have had their time and are now out of date. If Winston Churchill was still alive I would say the same about him. They have repeatedly rallied against our judiciary on the side of illegal immigrants, and for this reason alone, I would kick them into touch. We, as a nation, have to move forward. We cannot allow anyone to continually drag us back. . You know the saying "The Road To Hell is Paved With Good Intentions?" . Not that the next example ever had any "good intentions" to start with, but in the first six years of Adolf Hitler's dictatorship, Jews felt the effects of more than 400 decrees and regulations on all aspects of their lives. The regulations gradually but systematically took away their rights and property, transforming them from citizens into outcasts. Many of the laws were national ones issued by the German administration, affecting all Jews. State, regional, and municipal officials also issued many decrees in their own communities. As Nazi leaders prepared for war in Europe, antisemitic legislation in Germany and Austria paved the way for more radical persecution of Jews. . Enacting plans to remove the protections of "illegal immigrants" would parallel the UK on same path as above. Is that humane ? . Instead of punitive action, why not create legitimate routes to provide safe and easy access ? That is humane." Don't bother with facts or compassion he won't get it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What was the point of the Letby trial? She's already serving 14 life sentences. What have we gained now that she's had another charge added? Yeah that point has popped up a lot in the daily mail today, waste of tax payers money etc. Seriously I cannot comprehend why anyone would ask that question, isn't the answer obvious? So the parents get answers and hopefully closure. What if it was your baby?" Yes we can all agree that the parents will get some form of comfort from it. How much comfort is something that I can't quantify. But do we believe that the comfort given to them is worth the hundreds of thousands of pounds that the trial cost? Do we believe that it was worth damaging the lives of 12 new jurors, who had to listen to all of the details of the killing, and face the person that did it. For me it's not worth putting 12 people through a harrowing experience, to provide a crumb of comfort to the parents, especially when the trial will have no effect on Letby's future. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What was the point of the Letby trial? She's already serving 14 life sentences. What have we gained now that she's had another charge added? Yeah that point has popped up a lot in the daily mail today, waste of tax payers money etc. Seriously I cannot comprehend why anyone would ask that question, isn't the answer obvious? So the parents get answers and hopefully closure. What if it was your baby? Yes we can all agree that the parents will get some form of comfort from it. How much comfort is something that I can't quantify. But do we believe that the comfort given to them is worth the hundreds of thousands of pounds that the trial cost? Do we believe that it was worth damaging the lives of 12 new jurors, who had to listen to all of the details of the killing, and face the person that did it. For me it's not worth putting 12 people through a harrowing experience, to provide a crumb of comfort to the parents, especially when the trial will have no effect on Letby's future." I'd say justice, not comfort. And not knowing the law I'd assume it was a process to be completed due to failure of verdict in the first trial, and so the charge was changed from murder to attempted murder. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What was the point of the Letby trial? She's already serving 14 life sentences. What have we gained now that she's had another charge added? Yeah that point has popped up a lot in the daily mail today, waste of tax payers money etc. Seriously I cannot comprehend why anyone would ask that question, isn't the answer obvious? So the parents get answers and hopefully closure. What if it was your baby? Yes we can all agree that the parents will get some form of comfort from it. How much comfort is something that I can't quantify. But do we believe that the comfort given to them is worth the hundreds of thousands of pounds that the trial cost? Do we believe that it was worth damaging the lives of 12 new jurors, who had to listen to all of the details of the killing, and face the person that did it. For me it's not worth putting 12 people through a harrowing experience, to provide a crumb of comfort to the parents, especially when the trial will have no effect on Letby's future." I presume the point must be that a crime as heinous as attempted murder shouldn’t go unpunished. I would have thought as a prosecutor I would be concerned that it would look like the State was placing a lower value on one person’s life over that of another. Of course nowadays lots of crimes go unpunished so that element of equality before the law has long dissipated. I’m not convinced that jurors shouldn’t be put through the trauma of the trial. As a disconnected bystander it’s not really much worse than anything one can see on TV or the internet every day of the week. Plus it’s their duty as a subject. It’s not the State’s job to protect people from the realities of what’s going on around them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What was the point of the Letby trial? She's already serving 14 life sentences. What have we gained now that she's had another charge added? Yeah that point has popped up a lot in the daily mail today, waste of tax payers money etc. Seriously I cannot comprehend why anyone would ask that question, isn't the answer obvious? So the parents get answers and hopefully closure. What if it was your baby? Yes we can all agree that the parents will get some form of comfort from it. How much comfort is something that I can't quantify. But do we believe that the comfort given to them is worth the hundreds of thousands of pounds that the trial cost? Do we believe that it was worth damaging the lives of 12 new jurors, who had to listen to all of the details of the killing, and face the person that did it. For me it's not worth putting 12 people through a harrowing experience, to provide a crumb of comfort to the parents, especially when the trial will have no effect on Letby's future." Fair point! Same with women who sexualy assaulted but were too scared or embarrassed to come forward for fear of losing their jobs or no one would believe them. I mean it's all in the past? Why set up operation yewtree to get justice for the victims of jimmy Saville. He's already dead and saving tax payers money is more important right? Also as stated if someone comes forward with new information of a crime that happened in the past the police, CPS, courts etc have a duty to investigate That's the law, the information is available on the government website. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What was the point of the Letby trial? She's already serving 14 life sentences. What have we gained now that she's had another charge added? Yeah that point has popped up a lot in the daily mail today, waste of tax payers money etc. Seriously I cannot comprehend why anyone would ask that question, isn't the answer obvious? So the parents get answers and hopefully closure. What if it was your baby? Yes we can all agree that the parents will get some form of comfort from it. How much comfort is something that I can't quantify. But do we believe that the comfort given to them is worth the hundreds of thousands of pounds that the trial cost? Do we believe that it was worth damaging the lives of 12 new jurors, who had to listen to all of the details of the killing, and face the person that did it. For me it's not worth putting 12 people through a harrowing experience, to provide a crumb of comfort to the parents, especially when the trial will have no effect on Letby's future." We can't even begin to quantify the level of comfort they have got from the verdict, it's probably still too soon for them to process and work through what has been for them a living hell. Losing a child and knowing the reason why must be extremely difficult, I know some who forty years later they cope with that loss but they knew why.. To not have the answers and for their to be no answers in this particular case with it's awful consequences for others too would be a burden on top of the loss they suffered.. And if in answering those questions we the system brings some 'closure' on that question for them then whatever comfort even if it's just their own personal 'crumb' is more than fine.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd say justice, not comfort. And not knowing the law I'd assume it was a process to be completed due to failure of verdict in the first trial, and so the charge was changed from murder to attempted murder." It is standard procedure, but the CPS can choose to drop a case if it's "not in the public interest". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I presume the point must be that a crime as heinous as attempted murder shouldn’t go unpunished." I would agree, but Letby is already serving 14 life sentences, so there isn't really any possibility of punishing her any further. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fair point! Same with women who sexualy assaulted but were too scared or embarrassed to come forward for fear of losing their jobs or no one would believe them. I mean it's all in the past? Why set up operation yewtree to get justice for the victims of jimmy Saville. He's already dead and saving tax payers money is more important right?" Silly arguments. If women don't come forward (for whatever reason), no prosecution can take place because there is no evidence. Yewtree was an investigation to see what went wrong, and what should be done to prevent it happening again. If they had tried to have a trial and find him guilty, that would have been a waste of time. "Also as stated if someone comes forward with new information of a crime that happened in the past the police, CPS, courts etc have a duty to investigate" In this case, the police have investigated but, as stated above, the CPS can drop a case if it wants to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Police found cable ties and chloroform in Gavin Plumb's flat. Jury found Plumb guilty on all accounts re Willoughby." I have suspicion you have Cluedo somewhere in your house  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Police found cable ties and chloroform in Gavin Plumb's flat. Jury found Plumb guilty on all accounts re Willoughby. I have suspicion you have Cluedo somewhere in your house "Not quite professor plum. Not sure if I do still have it, but have certainly played it in the past. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Police found cable ties and chloroform in Gavin Plumb's flat. Jury found Plumb guilty on all accounts re Willoughby." Good.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On bbc look east, the prisoner who absconded from the open prison Hollesley Bay, Suffolk, handed himself into police last night. Wtf is a murderer doing in an open prison? A second man failed to return to the same place earlier this week, following temporary release. He was imprisoned for manslaughter in 2018. He was caught yesterday." How else do you propose long term prisoners are re-integrated back into society? The absconder you referenced committed his crime in 2005 so presumably has progressed through the prison estate and ‘was’ being prepared for release. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On bbc look east, the prisoner who absconded from the open prison Hollesley Bay, Suffolk, handed himself into police last night. Wtf is a murderer doing in an open prison? A second man failed to return to the same place earlier this week, following temporary release. He was imprisoned for manslaughter in 2018. He was caught yesterday. How else do you propose long term prisoners are re-integrated back into society? The absconder you referenced committed his crime in 2005 so presumably has progressed through the prison estate and ‘was’ being prepared for release. " From tomorrow (6 June 2022), all indeterminate sentence offenders – those who have committed the most serious crimes, including murderer and r@pe – will face much stricter criteria to move from closed to open prison. The stringent new rules will mean the Deputy Prime Minister can block any such prisoner moving to an open prison unless they can demonstrably pass a tough three-step test, including proving they are highly unlikely to abscond; that the move is essential for them to work towards future release; and the move would not undermine public confidence in the wider criminal justice system. Earlier this year, the Deputy Prime Minister announced a package of landmark reforms designed to restore public confidence in the parole system. These included proposed changes to the Parole Board release test to ensure public protection is always the overriding consideration and a new power for Ministers to block the release of the most dangerous offenders in the interests of public safety. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
