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.

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.

Royals do you work within the justice system mate?

If so, can you please give me an idea of the amount of miscarriages of justice, either people being found guilty when not or flipped around?

Just interested to see from somebody that knows how common mistakes are in terms of verdict, what people are found guilty on (such as person a) got attacked by person b) in a bar, he sparked b out with 1 punch but b smacked his head on the corner of a table and nearly lost his life). I call that handbags in a boozar that at worst is ABH, however he is being charged with attempted murder.

People getting reduced sentencing due to drug abuse or issues of mental stability.

I'm hoping you will say the margin of error is tiny.

[Royal24s]

Yes, I was a policeman for many years and qualified in law after I retired.
That's a massive question, but I do believe that there is an increasing number of miscarriages of justice, and I think that view is widely shared in the legal profession.
Like every other area of human activity, dumbing down is cutting in, as is the fact that they're trying to do everything on the cheap.
Recruitment quotas are a big factor both in the police force and on the bench, as is the very existence of the CPS.
As in other areas, common sense has gone by the board, and you quote a very good example of the criminal justice system getting involved in matters where you can't really get a reliable conviction - a fight where we can't ever really know for certain who was the assailant and who the victim .
Political pressures tilt the board in matters such as alleged domestic violence and rape, and these are matters where it appears we prefer to send a political message than to ensure a safe conviction.
Actually, there's a massive number of reasons, but we're in trouble at the moment.
There's a somewhat complicated factor too which is quite technical, and I may try to set it out here later , but it's to do with politicians trying to alter the basic principles of English Law to fit European law during our thankfully ended Euro adventure. I'm hoping that will be fully reversed in time.
In answer to your direct question, I'm afraid that I think miscarriages of justice are very common.

[Fug1]

Yes, I was a policeman for many years and qualified in law after I retired.
That's a massive question, but I do believe that there is an increasing number of miscarriages of justice, and I think that view is widely shared in the legal profession.
Like every other area of human activity, dumbing down is cutting in, as is the fact that they're trying to do everything on the cheap.
Recruitment quotas are a big factor both in the police force and on the bench, as is the very existence of the CPS.
As in other areas, common sense has gone by the board, and you quote a very good example of the criminal justice system getting involved in matters where you can't really get a reliable conviction - a fight where we can't ever really know for certain who was the assailant and who the victim .
Political pressures tilt the board in matters such as alleged domestic violence and rape, and these are matters where it appears we prefer to send a political message than to ensure a safe conviction.
Actually, there's a massive number of reasons, but we're in trouble at the moment.
There's a somewhat complicated factor too which is quite technical, and I may try to set it out here later , but it's to do with politicians trying to alter the basic principles of English Law to fit European law during our thankfully ended Euro adventure. I'm hoping that will be fully reversed in time.
In answer to your direct question, I'm afraid that I think miscarriages of justice are very common.

That's quite grim reading.

[Royal24s]

Yes, but you know, we can put it right if we work at it.
The whole world seems to be moving gradually in the direction of truth for the first time in decades, so we can dare to dream at this point in history.

[Michaelfatley]

Yes, I was a policeman for many years and qualified in law after I retired.
That's a massive question, but I do believe that there is an increasing number of miscarriages of justice, and I think that view is widely shared in the legal profession.
Like every other area of human activity, dumbing down is cutting in, as is the fact that they're trying to do everything on the cheap.
Recruitment quotas are a big factor both in the police force and on the bench, as is the very existence of the CPS.
As in other areas, common sense has gone by the board, and you quote a very good example of the criminal justice system getting involved in matters where you can't really get a reliable conviction - a fight where we can't ever really know for certain who was the assailant and who the victim .
Political pressures tilt the board in matters such as alleged domestic violence and rape, and these are matters where it appears we prefer to send a political message than to ensure a safe conviction.
Actually, there's a massive number of reasons, but we're in trouble at the moment.
There's a somewhat complicated factor too which is quite technical, and I may try to set it out here later , but it's to do with politicians trying to alter the basic principles of English Law to fit European law during our thankfully ended Euro adventure. I'm hoping that will be fully reversed in time.
In answer to your direct question, I'm afraid that I think miscarriages of justice are very common.

That's quite grim reading.

Did you mean Grimm?

[Royal24s]

Don't retract my points but an excellent dig flatley !
In fairness, that's how to do it!

[Zambo]

Hillman will deny all this despite the black and white evidence. and despite the fact I'd told him I'd been in six and knew exactly what it was like.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... nswer.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ebook.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nmate.html

[Royal24s]

Hillman will deny all this despite the black and white evidence. and despite the fact I'd told him I'd been in six and knew exactly what it was like.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... nswer.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ebook.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nmate.html

In what capacity ?

[Zambo]

Hillman will deny all this despite the black and white evidence. and despite the fact I'd told him I'd been in six and knew exactly what it was like.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... nswer.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ebook.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nmate.html

In what capacity ?

FA business. Albany, Parkhurst, Camp Hill, Kingston, Ford, Scrubs.

Refereeing football matches on their lush pitches, instructing prisoners on the laws, and taking exams.

Did it primarily to confirm what I thought about their 'benefits', but it was good to see some who genuinely wanted to study and become refs.

[ccreds]

Hillman will deny all this despite the black and white evidence. and despite the fact I'd told him I'd been in six and knew exactly what it was like.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... nswer.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ebook.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nmate.html

In what capacity ?

FA business. Albany, Parkhurst, Camp Hill, Kingston, Ford, Scrubs.

Refereeing football matches on their lush pitches, instructing prisoners on the laws, and taking exams.

Did it primarily to confirm what I thought about their 'benefits', but it was good to see some who genuinely wanted to study and become refs.

Lush because they aren't used Zambo though?

[Zambo]

No mate, because they have a full time groundsman, and state of art mowers, rollers, and liners

[Zambo]

Scum like this can't even get fixed up at the five star accommodation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -jail.html

[kancutlawns]

No mate, because they have a full time groundsman, and state of art mowers, rollers, and liners

Paid for by the taxpayer as with the London Stadium?

[Zambo]

Yep same fund Lawns

[kancutlawns]

Fair enough.

[The Tick]

These cunts should have never have been transferred to a minimum security prison, but obviously some do gooding sap has deemed that it was safe to do so.

Perhaps the person or committee who were responsible for the decision, would like to give us their reasons despite the following two sentences, but don't hold your breath because they will no doubt crawl back into their holes as these people never seem accountable to anyone.

'Two convicted rapists and a man convicted of assault - all considered to be a "risk to the public" - have absconded from an open prison'.

'Leyhill is a prison for adult male prisoners from the South West area who are deemed "low risk"'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-37972178

This thread could end up being the longest on the forum if examples of why the left are the enemy of the people are placed here.

What has "the left" got to do with any of that?

[Carlos J]

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.

Excellently put, Royals. One thing I have commented on before and disagree with, and maybe you have an opinion of, is victim personal statements before sentencing: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/v_to_z/vict ... tatements/

All crimes have an impact on the victim, the more serious, the greater the impact but not always. This is a given I would say. But I tend that the law should be separate from emotions and is and has been, capable of sentencing without its need:

e) The court must pass what it judges to be the appropriate sentence having regard to the circumstances of the offence and of the offender, taking into account, so far as the court considers it appropriate, the impact on the victim. The opinions of the victim or the victim's close relatives as to what the sentence should be are therefore not relevant, unlike the consequences of the offence on them. Victims should be advised of this. If, despite the advice, opinions as to sentence are included in the statement, the court should pay no attention to them.

[Zambo]

These cunts should have never have been transferred to a minimum security prison, but obviously some do gooding sap has deemed that it was safe to do so.

Perhaps the person or committee who were responsible for the decision, would like to give us their reasons despite the following two sentences, but don't hold your breath because they will no doubt crawl back into their holes as these people never seem accountable to anyone.

'Two convicted rapists and a man convicted of assault - all considered to be a "risk to the public" - have absconded from an open prison'.

'Leyhill is a prison for adult male prisoners from the South West area who are deemed "low risk"'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-37972178

This thread could end up being the longest on the forum if examples of why the left are the enemy of the people are placed here.

What has "the left" got to do with any of that?

Everything, they are everywhere making decisions like that, and in this cae putting the publics safety at risk.

[Fug1]

Have to say The Tick, decisions made by limp wristed offend nobody do-gooders see us where we are now.

These are the rules, break them at your peril.

Is the opposite of what has been implemented since rock n roll Blair.

[The Tick]

Have to say The Tick, decisions made by limp wristed offend nobody do-gooders see us where we are now.

These are the rules, break them at your peril.

Is the opposite of what has been implemented since rock n roll Blair.

How do you know that the story highlighted by he OP came about by decisions by "the left"?

[Fug1]

I don't, but then you could ask me how I think a lefty behaves compared to a righty.

I'm probably wrong but I cannot distingush between the left decision makers, compared to the right decision makers.

There maybe subtle bits that a trained eye can pick up on, but my eye is neither subtle or trained, or educated.

But that's the point; in voters minds is there a huge difference in what the left and the right believe in and stand for?

I don't think there is a jot of difference between the leaders of the right or left.

Why?

Easy.

€€€££££$$$$$€€€€€£££££.

There's your politics, right, left, centre; money talks alot louder than me or you.

If you think one bunch of the greedy fucking bastards are better than the other bunch of thieving cunts, your wrong.

[Fug1]

Do you think Theresa May cares more than Tony Blair does about my life?

Of course they don't, they couldn't give a fucking shit.

[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.

Excellently put, Royals. One thing I have commented on before and disagree with, and maybe you have an opinion of, is victim personal statements before sentencing: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/v_to_z/vict ... tatements/

All crimes have an impact on the victim, the more serious, the greater the impact but not always. This is a given I would say. But I tend that the law should be separate from emotions and is and has been, capable of sentencing without its need:

e) The court must pass what it judges to be the appropriate sentence having regard to the circumstances of the offence and of the offender, taking into account, so far as the court considers it appropriate, the impact on the victim. The opinions of the victim or the victim's close relatives as to what the sentence should be are therefore not relevant, unlike the consequences of the offence on them. Victims should be advised of this. If, despite the advice, opinions as to sentence are included in the statement, the court should pay no attention to them.

Well, I don't want to go off on too much of a tangent from your question, but I must explain that after 1300 years of Common Law and Usage, which is a highly developed and scrupulously fair system, but a finely balanced one, there have been several serious underminings of it in the last few decades.
In 1997 the Blair government decided to appoint all sorts of unqualified people to the Bench, as they did in other professions in order to fill quotas. These people were often politically committed and this cannot happen in an even system - their sparse knowledge was therefore compounded by personal prejudice.
Next, both legislation and proceedings became influenced by political aims rather than justice. Again this cannot properly be allowed since political aims change, but justice should not. A very good example of this is the pursuit of prosecutions regarding new allegations four or five decades after the alleged event. Now, whatever the merits of the allegations , it is clearly impossible to reach a safe verdict for various reasons including the inability to find evidence after that period. Witnesses may be dead, uncontactable or moved on because they were unaware that they had witnessed anything since no one mentioned it at the time.
Finally, our revolting politicians were trying to alter the nature of our legal system to make it fit in with the continental one. Suffice it to say that their system is based upon completely different foundations. This was never going to work, but has left things in a terrible mess until we can sift out the EU friendly laws which contradict the rest of it.

Anyway , of course I agree completely, and perhaps my long preamble will be explained when I tell you why. One of the oldest principles of English Law is that anything admitted to evidence must beMore probative than prejudicial . On other words, it must add more fact than emotion or motivation .
This is a very simple but vital element in straining out things which obstruct an objective and logical conclusion, but one which has increasingly been ignored in this subtle manoeuvring toward the continental system .
It is to be hoped that , as we move away from this dreadful globalist trend, ( and let me tell you that Mr. Donald Trump is vital to this), we can clean out all these unjust political bolt -ons, and this is certainly one.

Footnote. I suspect that you may be Portuguese, ( not meaning to suggest thats a crime with that term ), and so you may notice that Portuguese Law has a great deal more in common with true English Law than other continental systems.There are reasons for that.
Of course, I may be off the mark in my guesswork there, and if I am forget that I mentioned it .

[kancutlawns]

Do you think Theresa May cares more than Tony Blair does about my life?

Of course they don't, they couldn't give a fucking shit.

+1. Felt this way since about 2010 and not really just because the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition came in. Thought the tipping point in politicians actually having a modicum of interest in the man on the street happened in the aftermath of the 2008 Banking Crash. The electorate just doesn't care anymore which is generally why they vote for anyone but these cunts, abroad and here.

[Carlos J]

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.

Excellently put, Royals. One thing I have commented on before and disagree with, and maybe you have an opinion of, is victim personal statements before sentencing: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/v_to_z/vict ... tatements/

All crimes have an impact on the victim, the more serious, the greater the impact but not always. This is a given I would say. But I tend that the law should be separate from emotions and is and has been, capable of sentencing without its need:

e) The court must pass what it judges to be the appropriate sentence having regard to the circumstances of the offence and of the offender, taking into account, so far as the court considers it appropriate, the impact on the victim. The opinions of the victim or the victim's close relatives as to what the sentence should be are therefore not relevant, unlike the consequences of the offence on them. Victims should be advised of this. If, despite the advice, opinions as to sentence are included in the statement, the court should pay no attention to them.

Well, I don't want to go off on too much of a tangent from your question, but I must explain that after 1300 years of Common Law and Usage, which is a highly developed and scrupulously fair system, but a finely balanced one, there have been several serious underminings of it in the last few decades.
In 1997 the Blair government decided to appoint all sorts of unqualified people to the Bench, as they did in other professions in order to fill quotas. These people were often politically committed and this cannot happen in an even system - their sparse knowledge was therefore compounded by personal prejudice.
Next, both legislation and proceedings became influenced by political aims rather than justice. Again this cannot properly be allowed since political aims change, but justice should not. A very good example of this is the pursuit of prosecutions regarding new allegations four or five decades after the alleged event. Now, whatever the merits of the allegations , it is clearly impossible to reach a safe verdict for various reasons including the inability to find evidence after that period. Witnesses may be dead, uncontactable or moved on because they were unaware that they had witnessed anything since no one mentioned it at the time.
Finally, our revolting politicians were trying to alter the nature of our legal system to make it fit in with the continental one. Suffice it to say that their system is based upon completely different foundations. This was never going to work, but has left things in a terrible mess until we can sift out the EU friendly laws which contradict the rest of it.

Anyway , of course I agree completely, and perhaps my long preamble will be explained when I tell you why. One of the oldest principles of English Law is that anything admitted to evidence must beMore probative than prejudicial . On other words, it must add more fact than emotion or motivation .
This is a very simple but vital element in straining out things which obstruct an objective and logical conclusion, but one which has increasingly been ignored in this subtle manoeuvring toward the continental system .
It is to be hoped that , as we move away from this dreadful globalist trend, ( and let me tell you that Mr. Donald Trump is vital to this), we can clean out all these unjust political bolt -ons, and this is certainly one.

Footnote. I suspect that you may be Portuguese, ( not meaning to suggest thats a crime with that term ), and so you may notice that Portuguese Law has a great deal more in common with true English Law than other continental systems.There are reasons for that.
Of course, I may be off the mark in my guesswork there, and if I am forget that I mentioned it .

Thanks for the reply, Royals. And I concur with what you say regarding the law.

I am not Portuguese, but hey, I always care for dear Madeleine. And Portuguese law, which is better in respect of nothing to the meeja, and rights of arguido and as dear Kate, arguida.

Many ponderers as you know, may ponders to add to the McCann thread: https://www.talkforum.co.uk/viewtopic.p ... start=1215

This is not a McCann thread, err thankfully say many.