Why the Left are a Danger to us All

[Fug1]

Most people do plead not guilty to murder actually. Of course only know about the evidence from third party hearsay, and it's important that it's checked out by a Court, but I'm guessing it'll be about his state of mind at the material time.
Not just the possible claim that he was insane, but whether he actually intended her to die - maybe trying to reduce it to manslaughter .
Obviously we can all form an opinion, and of course it seems very unlikely that he's got an answer to any if this, but my point is that he and everyone else must have an opportunity to explain himself if he can before justice can be done.
The justice of the Lynch Mob is no justice at all .

So, for example; a murderer knows under Country x law, the punishment if found guilty is death by hanging.

The law is stating murder is unacceptable in Country x and the punishment of breaking that law is death by hanging.

The process of determining guilt probably starts with the Police suspecting a law has been broken, gathering evidence to support there suspicions and then over to the justice system if the Police believe that have sufficient evidence to convict.

They then gather evidence to present to a Judge and Jury in a manner that they hope would lead to a conviction.

Meanwhile, the suspect has at his disposal representation to prove his innocence; they will gather evidence to disprove the evidence the Police have gathered and ultimately prove there guy didn't in fact commit the crime.

A Jury will then deliberate on the evidential facts that they have available to them via evidence solely provided to them curtosy of both the defence and prosecuting sides, with the Judge acting as referee in this process.

If found guilty the Judge will then administer the punishment in accordance with the law. In this case hanging.

That sounds fair to me.

However, I think the only thing a defence lawyer can or should do is prove somebody is innocent, I don't think a defence lawyers job is to try and ensure a guilty man's freedom at the expense of justice.

Is that pretty much how it all works?

Again who advised Joe Cox killer to plead not guilty? I would certainly hope that advise didn't come from somebody that was there to prove his innocence of this crime. That's where my problem starts. You either did it or you didn't.

[Roy Twing]

Why the fuck is Jo Cox's family being put through this shit which is costing the taxpayer a tidy sum

Not guilty pleas for cunts like this should be denied. Stretch his neck.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37997235

I agree. While it is vital that everyone is entitled to a fair trial; what is more than puzzling is that there are witnesses to the murder and concrete evidence as to his guilt, yet he is pleading not guilty. On what possible grounds can he be doing this?

Maybe trying the 'manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility' or similar?
Just a guess.

[Fug1]

Why the fuck is Jo Cox's family being put through this shit which is costing the taxpayer a tidy sum

Not guilty pleas for cunts like this should be denied. Stretch his neck.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37997235

I agree. While it is vital that everyone is entitled to a fair trial; what is more than puzzling is that there are witnesses to the murder and concrete evidence as to his guilt, yet he is pleading not guilty. On what possible grounds can he be doing this?

Maybe trying the 'manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility' or similar?
Just a guess.

That maybe true Roy, and after it has been established that he did indeed do it, look at his criminal history, his mental history etc etc it may very well be his 1st ever offence, he has acted completely out of character blah blah, but the fact still remains he did it.

Let's hope if he was found not guilty of murder and did see the light of day again one day, he didn't have another off day and ruin another families life.

[Roy Twing]

Why the fuck is Jo Cox's family being put through this shit which is costing the taxpayer a tidy sum

Not guilty pleas for cunts like this should be denied. Stretch his neck.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37997235

I agree. While it is vital that everyone is entitled to a fair trial; what is more than puzzling is that there are witnesses to the murder and concrete evidence as to his guilt, yet he is pleading not guilty. On what possible grounds can he be doing this?

Maybe trying the 'manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility' or similar?
Just a guess.

That maybe true Roy, and after it has been established that he did indeed do it, look at his criminal history, his mental history etc etc it may very well be his 1st ever offence, he has acted completely out of character blah blah, but the fact still remains he did it.

Let's hope if he was found not guilty of murder and did see the light of day again one day, he didn't have another off day and ruin another families life.

Quite agree, - my take on cases such as this is probably as extreme as it gets, - anyone guilty beyond any shadow of doubt of committing such an act should be executed, for many reasons, not least the one you suggest.

[Zambo]

However, I think the only thing a defence lawyer can or should do is prove somebody is innocent, I don't think a defence lawyers job is to try and ensure a guilty man's freedom at the expense of justice.

Is that pretty much how it all works?

Again who advised Joe Cox killer to plead not guilty? I would certainly hope that advise didn't come from somebody that was there to prove his innocence of this crime. That's where my problem starts. You either did it or you didn't.

Defence barristers have the morals of sewer rats. Their drivers are money and notoriety. Could you defend someone who you knew was guilty and try and get them off, or as lenient a sentence as possible, I certainly couldn't.

This country's criminal justice system is rotten to the core. Get shot of juries for a start, half the people don't want to be there, and couldn't give a shit. Mrs Z was on a Crown Court jury a few years back and she has been called again for January. Three members of the jury who were selected, could hardly speak or understand English, and all they wanted to do was go to sleep in the jury room. It's a farce and has lead to many injustices over the years. There also needs to be a clearout of senile wincing handwringing leftie judges who dish out slap on the wrist sentences to hard core and serial offenders. The Probation Service is also full of do gooding sandal wearing tree huggers.

Everyone knows Mair is as guilty as fuck, so why to we have to go through this charade. A waste of oxygen and should be relieved of the permission to breath it.

[AlcoholBrazil]

Everyone knows Mair is as guilty as fuck, so why to we have to go through this charade.

Because there is so much political capital wrapped up in this case on either side of the argument.
Ms.Cox will be immortalised by the timing of her slaying in regards of the Referendum.

[kancutlawns]

Everyone knows Mair is as guilty as fuck, so why to we have to go through this charade.

Because there is so much political capital wrapped up in this case on either side of the argument.
Ms.Cox will be immortalised by the timing of her slaying in regards of the Referendum.

What exactly are you suggesting, Alc?

[AlcoholBrazil]

Suddenly the claims of "Britain First" is back on the script despite being disregarded at the time of arrest.
Those subtle platitudes uttered by the left helped equalise the Brexit Vote, but still failed to get the desired result.
Maybe we need to be colonised by Trump to escape being dragged back into the EU by Sturgeon, Farron,Clegg, Blair and that evil Miller witch.

[m4rkb]

We need to let a million immigrants into the country in memory of Jo Cox.

You can guarantee if anyone agrees with this ludicrous statement it will be a modern progressive leftie.

[Roy Twing]

Suddenly the claims of "Britain First" is back on the script despite being disregarded at the time of arrest.
Those subtle platitudes uttered by the left helped equalise the Brexit Vote, but still failed to get the desired result.
Maybe we need to be colonised by Trump to escape being dragged back into the EU by Sturgeon, Farron,Clegg, Blair and that evil Miller witch.

Is it really?
I guess I shouldn't be surprised, - it's pretty clear that those odious people you mention are testing the water to see whether they can actually get away with reversing brexit, so any foul tactic is worth a go.

[m4 colin]

A middle aged man who has never come to the attention of the authorities before
commits brutal murder in public , and its Dont waste time on a trial Orf with his head. ? Sorry That Doesnt get it for me . I want to know why. And a mark of a civilized society is everyone has his day in court and anyway civilized nations do not execute insane persons

[m4rkb]

He murdered her for virtually the same reason Anders Brevik murdered all those that he did.

He saw her kind of politics was likely to destroy what was left of the British nation. He was right in that respect but no one has the right to do what he did in a civilise society.

This is why the current crop of 'pro-anything-but-Britain' politicians fear the right wing more than certain religious organisations with a long and proven history of murder and violence on their record. The first lot would never vote for such policies but the second bunch see them as a helping hand.

[Zambo]

Anyone who is insane and committed murder should be locked akway and treated. Anyone who isn't insane and there is absolutely no doubt that he or she is guilty, should be executed. As why they committed murder, personally I couldn't give a shit.

[warmleatherette]

Why the fuck is Jo Cox's family being put through this shit which is costing the taxpayer a tidy sum

Not guilty pleas for cunts like this should be denied. Stretch his neck.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37997235

I agree. While it is vital that everyone is entitled to a fair trial; what is more than puzzling is that there are witnesses to the murder and concrete evidence as to his guilt, yet he is pleading not guilty. On what possible grounds can he be doing this?

He declined to enter a plea so it has to go not guilty on his behalf.

[warmleatherette]

Suddenly the claims of "Britain First" is back on the script despite being disregarded at the time of arrest.
Those subtle platitudes uttered by the left helped equalise the Brexit Vote, but still failed to get the desired result.
Maybe we need to be colonised by Trump to escape being dragged back into the EU by Sturgeon, Farron,Clegg, Blair and that evil Miller witch.

Is it really?
I guess I shouldn't be surprised, - it's pretty clear that those odious people you mention are testing the water to see whether they can actually get away with reversing brexit, so any foul tactic is worth a go.

What makes you think he didn't say it, he was photographed at a Britain first rally and was obviously "triggered" by something, facebook is a powerful propaganda tool to the unhinged.

[m4rkb]

Britain First is exactly the kind of organisation we don't want regardless of what they claim to stand for.

I've seen some of the footage of the things they go around inciting and frankly if I were muslim I'd react the same as many of those.

There is no political logic in what they promote other than an insinuation of violence comitted by ill-educated thugs straight from the football terraces. All they are likely to do is create race war when even people like me realise many muslims just want a peaceful life.

That said, it does not excuse the large amount of fanatics inside the Islamic community who secretly espouse equivalent views which the left seem to welcome with no idea of what consequences may arise if they get the upper hand.

We need sensible middle grounders on this not far right or hard left mainly white fuckwits getting involved.

[Zambo]

Why the fuck is Jo Cox's family being put through this shit which is costing the taxpayer a tidy sum

Not guilty pleas for cunts like this should be denied. Stretch his neck.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37997235

I agree. While it is vital that everyone is entitled to a fair trial; what is more than puzzling is that there are witnesses to the murder and concrete evidence as to his guilt, yet he is pleading not guilty. On what possible grounds can he be doing this?

He declined to enter a plea so it has to go not guilty on his behalf.

Another reason why the system is a joke. Silence means not guilty. What a load of bollocks.

[warmleatherette]

Britain First is exactly the kind of organisation we don't want regardless of what they claim to stand for.

I've seen some of the footage of the things they go around inciting and frankly if I were muslim I'd react the same as many of those.

There is no political logic in what they promote other than an insinuation of violence comitted by ill-educated thugs straight from the football terraces. All they are likely to do is create race war when even people like me realise many muslims just want a peaceful life.

That said, it does not excuse the large amount of fanatics inside the Islamic community who secretly espouse equivalent views which the left seem to welcome with no idea of what consequences may arise if they get the upper hand.

We need sensible middle grounders on this not far right or hard left mainly white fuckwits getting involved.

I concur, talking of such, this bloke Stephen Bannon that Trump has chosen to be his "chief strategist" what a choice, who hasn't heard of Breitbart and ex Goldman Sachs to boot, I can't wait to see what he comes up with

[Fug1]

Britain First is exactly the kind of organisation we don't want regardless of what they claim to stand for.

I've seen some of the footage of the things they go around inciting and frankly if I were muslim I'd react the same as many of those.

There is no political logic in what they promote other than an insinuation of violence comitted by ill-educated thugs straight from the football terraces. All they are likely to do is create race war when even people like me realise many muslims just want a peaceful life.

That said, it does not excuse the large amount of fanatics inside the Islamic community who secretly espouse equivalent views which the left seem to welcome with no idea of what consequences may arise if they get the upper hand.

We need sensible middle grounders on this not far right or hard left mainly white fuckwits getting involved.

Agree with that mate.

Britain 1st don't represent me, nor do I want them to.

In a stupid, old fashioned kind of way I represent my parents and the family values that i was bought up on, and them before.

But again, those family values have been dilutted so much, and yes it was the Labour pratt Blair that rewarded kids having kids with flats and benefits making it a viable career path.

What happened to family having to look after family when things went tits up?

No need when guitar jamming Tone is there to comfort and support you.

[kancutlawns]

Britain First is exactly the kind of organisation we don't want regardless of what they claim to stand for.

I've seen some of the footage of the things they go around inciting and frankly if I were muslim I'd react the same as many of those.

There is no political logic in what they promote other than an insinuation of violence comitted by ill-educated thugs straight from the football terraces. All they are likely to do is create race war when even people like me realise many muslims just want a peaceful life.

That said, it does not excuse the large amount of fanatics inside the Islamic community who secretly espouse equivalent views which the left seem to welcome with no idea of what consequences may arise if they get the upper hand.

We need sensible middle grounders on this not far right or hard left mainly white fuckwits getting involved.

Good post.

[Roy Twing]

Suddenly the claims of "Britain First" is back on the script despite being disregarded at the time of arrest.
Those subtle platitudes uttered by the left helped equalise the Brexit Vote, but still failed to get the desired result.
Maybe we need to be colonised by Trump to escape being dragged back into the EU by Sturgeon, Farron,Clegg, Blair and that evil Miller witch.

Is it really?
I guess I shouldn't be surprised, - it's pretty clear that those odious people you mention are testing the water to see whether they can actually get away with reversing brexit, so any foul tactic is worth a go.

What makes you think he didn't say it, he was photographed at a Britain first rally and was obviously "triggered" by something, facebook is a powerful propaganda tool to the unhinged.

Where did I imply he didn't say it?
I was referring to the wider implications.

[Royal24s]

Most people do plead not guilty to murder actually. Of course only know about the evidence from third party hearsay, and it's important that it's checked out by a Court, but I'm guessing it'll be about his state of mind at the material time.
Not just the possible claim that he was insane, but whether he actually intended her to die - maybe trying to reduce it to manslaughter .
Obviously we can all form an opinion, and of course it seems very unlikely that he's got an answer to any if this, but my point is that he and everyone else must have an opportunity to explain himself if he can before justice can be done.
The justice of the Lynch Mob is no justice at all .

So, for example; a murderer knows under Country x law, the punishment if found guilty is death by hanging.

The law is stating murder is unacceptable in Country x and the punishment of breaking that law is death by hanging.

The process of determining guilt probably starts with the Police suspecting a law has been broken, gathering evidence to support there suspicions and then over to the justice system if the Police believe that have sufficient evidence to convict.

They then gather evidence to present to a Judge and Jury in a manner that they hope would lead to a conviction.

Meanwhile, the suspect has at his disposal representation to prove his innocence; they will gather evidence to disprove the evidence the Police have gathered and ultimately prove there guy didn't in fact commit the crime.

A Jury will then deliberate on the evidential facts that they have available to them via evidence solely provided to them curtosy of both the defence and prosecuting sides, with the Judge acting as referee in this process.

If found guilty the Judge will then administer the punishment in accordance with the law. In this case hanging.

That sounds fair to me.

However, I think the only thing a defence lawyer can or should do is prove somebody is innocent, I don't think a defence lawyers job is to try and ensure a guilty man's freedom at the expense of justice.

Is that pretty much how it all works?

Again who advised Joe Cox killer to plead not guilty? I would certainly hope that advise didn't come from somebody that was there to prove his innocence of this crime. That's where my problem starts. You either did it or you didn't.

That's actually very well put. You have more or less described it in very straightforward terms, but there's one understandable but quite big error which is the burden of proof.
The defence need not prove anyone innocent - indeed there is no such verdict available.
The onus is upon the prosecution to prove them guilty - or fail to do so .
Hence he is " not guilty" as opposed to "innocent ", which might seem on the face of it to be the same,but is actually quite different.
In fact, the defence lawyer cannot defend a client whom he knows to be guilty, with the one exception that he may argue that the prosecution have failed to produce enough evidence to establish guilt - he cannot argue that the man didn't do it if he knows that he did.
That's different to believing him, of course. You haven't got to believe him, just represent his account to the Court in an articulate and legally correct manner.
If a lawyer declined clients or started forming opinions about guilt then there'd be no point in the Court being there, would there ?

It is a VERY important part of justice that no one can say that anyone was convicted only because they couldn't express themselves very well or didn't understand the proceedings , and so the defence is just as important as the prosecution in a just and transparent system.

Now, although the facts of the particular case under discussion here do seem conclusive on the face of it, these are the rules which apply to all cases, including for example people who are maliciously or wrongly accused of relatively minor and yet potentially very damaging wrongdoing. We can't have two sets of rules, and so we must follow them in all cases if we intend to maintain the credibility of the Law.

[Royal24s]

Anyone who is insane and committed murder should be locked akway and treated. Anyone who isn't insane and there is absolutely no doubt that he or she is guilty, should be executed. As why they committed murder, personally I couldn't give a shit.

Excellent !
Couple of small points though. You can't prove murder at all if you don't prove Why they committed it because specific intent is what separates it from manslaughter .
Also, you can't prove anything to a standard of "absolutely no doubt" , and that impossible goal is therefore not required - it's " beyond REASONABLE doubt".

What if the defendant was insane when the crime was committed, but no longer insane by the time if the trial ? What if was sane when he committed the crime but insane by the time of the trial ?
If he was the recipient of your idea of locking him away and treating him, what would happen if he became sane at some future date - possibly next week.

See, it's all quite complicated isn't it ? Are you quite sure you've thought your alternative legal process out properly ? It'd certainly be cheaper , but it's not very practical is it ?

[Royal24s]

Actually though, I'm not as worried as I was about your unilateral introduction of the death penalty as I was, because it'd never happen because you'd never get a conviction.

[Zambo]

If a lawyer declined clients or started forming opinions about guilt then there'd be no point in the Court being there, would there ?

It is a VERY important part of justice that no one can say that anyone was convicted only because they couldn't express themselves very well or didn't understand the proceedings , and so the defence is just as important as the prosecution in a just and transparent system.

There is something seriously wrong with people who can defend the accused knowing full well that they are guilty. They probably sleep like babies at night, and celebrate when they have got someone off, but I couldn't do it. I could ever only be a prosecutor. Of course people go to trial who are innocent and deserve a solid and sound defence team, but those who will argue that Mair is innocent are trash.