ChatterBank1 min ago
How Many Public Enquiries Must We Endure Now?
59 Answers
http://
until the judiciary are compelled to give the "correct" verdict? To look at this lowlife's family today on the news you could be forgiven for thinking the guy was shot whilst out collecting for the Red cross! I'll have a bet that 10 years from now we'll be crucifying some retired cop, having appealled all the way to the EU supreme court.
until the judiciary are compelled to give the "correct" verdict? To look at this lowlife's family today on the news you could be forgiven for thinking the guy was shot whilst out collecting for the Red cross! I'll have a bet that 10 years from now we'll be crucifying some retired cop, having appealled all the way to the EU supreme court.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I liked the nice touch of the man to the aunt's left. He was pulling his hat down and covering his face in front of the cameras. Honestly, who is going to nick him then?
Tora, what are these public enquiries of which you speak ? The only road for the family is a judicial review. This has to be on the basis that the proceedings were so unjust or the finding of the jury so perverse that no reasonable tribunal could have reached the verdict or findings. This was a judicial proceeding in the form of a coroner's inquest. The ECHR is not interested. If it were and could be involved, it would be deciding that all inquests by coroners were contrary to the rights of the individual. Does that strike you as likely ? (It probably does, if the tenor of the OP is anything to go by, but it would be a false conclusion)
Tora, what are these public enquiries of which you speak ? The only road for the family is a judicial review. This has to be on the basis that the proceedings were so unjust or the finding of the jury so perverse that no reasonable tribunal could have reached the verdict or findings. This was a judicial proceeding in the form of a coroner's inquest. The ECHR is not interested. If it were and could be involved, it would be deciding that all inquests by coroners were contrary to the rights of the individual. Does that strike you as likely ? (It probably does, if the tenor of the OP is anything to go by, but it would be a false conclusion)
"who is that thinks normal people care about the death of some drug dealing scum,"
I didn't know Mark Duggan, so I don't feel particularly attached to his family or emotional about his death.
What I do care about is the circumstances in which the police are allowed to kill someone. I appreciate it involves split-second decisions, but the actual circumstances in which Mark Duggan was killed and that split-second decision was made are still very unclear, and the jury's verdict hasn't made it much clearer.
I didn't know Mark Duggan, so I don't feel particularly attached to his family or emotional about his death.
What I do care about is the circumstances in which the police are allowed to kill someone. I appreciate it involves split-second decisions, but the actual circumstances in which Mark Duggan was killed and that split-second decision was made are still very unclear, and the jury's verdict hasn't made it much clearer.
it hasn't i agree, however his family, friends did themselves no favours
did Duggan have a gun, was it in his hand, what was the intelligence the police had, to deploy a weapon and shoot someone cannot be taken in a slow measured way, there must have been evidence to that effect, no one wants a person shot to death on our streets, if they have found no case to answer then surely the family are within their rights to take this matter on further. As to the aftermath, that wasn't because of his death, that was because tensions have been simmering for a long while over the perceived stop and search by the police.
did Duggan have a gun, was it in his hand, what was the intelligence the police had, to deploy a weapon and shoot someone cannot be taken in a slow measured way, there must have been evidence to that effect, no one wants a person shot to death on our streets, if they have found no case to answer then surely the family are within their rights to take this matter on further. As to the aftermath, that wasn't because of his death, that was because tensions have been simmering for a long while over the perceived stop and search by the police.
Trouble is people like Duggan and his ilk think they have the right (without police interference) to deal in drugs and carry guns.
When the police try to arrest them or speak to them then we get people protesting on the streets and telling the police to back off.
Some countries have the death penalty for dealing in drugs and with all the misery it brings wouldn't it be great if we had the same law here.
When the police try to arrest them or speak to them then we get people protesting on the streets and telling the police to back off.
Some countries have the death penalty for dealing in drugs and with all the misery it brings wouldn't it be great if we had the same law here.
VHG, problem is that if people didn't take recreational drugs, we wouldn't have a drug problem. No drug gangs, deaths over drug territory, no billions made by these people and drug mules dying because they swallowed packets of heroin, and one or two burst. No prisons full because of drug dealing and taking, see how this works
If legal aid is available, AOG; it seems to be unavailable for every civil action these days; the family could try suing as personal representatives or as victims of shock etc themselves. And some lawyer will take it up, just for the image and publicity it attracts. They might even act pro bono, for no fee at all.
It almost goes without saying, but the claim has precious little chance of succeeding but , if it did, they'd be scrabbling around to find any more than nominal damages. They might try for exemplary or punitive damages, but that doesn't look promising either, given the jury's findings on fundamental questions. This was a coroner's inquest, not a criminal trial.
It almost goes without saying, but the claim has precious little chance of succeeding but , if it did, they'd be scrabbling around to find any more than nominal damages. They might try for exemplary or punitive damages, but that doesn't look promising either, given the jury's findings on fundamental questions. This was a coroner's inquest, not a criminal trial.
jake-the-peg
/// I am puzzled ///
/// If the outcome was as obvious as Tora seems to think it was I wonder why it was an 8:2 split decision by the jury.///
It is what you call a "majority" decision.
Had it gone the other way, and others had complained, I am sure you would be the first to step in with cries of "it was a majority decision for goodness sake" or then perhaps a little stronger than that.
/// I am puzzled ///
/// If the outcome was as obvious as Tora seems to think it was I wonder why it was an 8:2 split decision by the jury.///
It is what you call a "majority" decision.
Had it gone the other way, and others had complained, I am sure you would be the first to step in with cries of "it was a majority decision for goodness sake" or then perhaps a little stronger than that.
T3
to answer your question
what 'endurance' is involved in the proper processing of our Laws?
so far we have just had an inquest which is the normal and established practice in this country
calls for anything further will only succeed if the present inconsistencies identified in the inquest are not satisfactorily resolved by the Police.
it amazes me that people who claim to be proud British are so intolerant, impatient and cavalier with one of the pillars of our society; an open and fair judicial system.
The notion that i doesn't matter if someone is shot by police because of who they are is the thinking of the tinpot regime and the police state.
It is not fitting for this country and hasn't been for many years.
to answer your question
what 'endurance' is involved in the proper processing of our Laws?
so far we have just had an inquest which is the normal and established practice in this country
calls for anything further will only succeed if the present inconsistencies identified in the inquest are not satisfactorily resolved by the Police.
it amazes me that people who claim to be proud British are so intolerant, impatient and cavalier with one of the pillars of our society; an open and fair judicial system.
The notion that i doesn't matter if someone is shot by police because of who they are is the thinking of the tinpot regime and the police state.
It is not fitting for this country and hasn't been for many years.
Thank goodness its winter or we could get a re-run of this
http://
http://
ummmm
/// You really are a bit bitter, aren't you? ///
Yes and I am sure I am not on my own, because we see such things from certain groups on an increasingly regular basis.
Why can't they accept an independent legal ruling, we don't conduct kangaroo courts in this country, every one is treated fairly regardless of colour, creed or politics.
/// You really are a bit bitter, aren't you? ///
Yes and I am sure I am not on my own, because we see such things from certain groups on an increasingly regular basis.
Why can't they accept an independent legal ruling, we don't conduct kangaroo courts in this country, every one is treated fairly regardless of colour, creed or politics.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.