829 comments posted · 3 followers · following 0
So what you are saying is that an O' level law student could tear your evidence in any court to pieces. Never mind that you would struggle to get a charge to stick with a duty solicitor present.
Fine. Case proven. I sentence you to puerile servitude of indeterminate length. Take him away to a place of ridicule
The document in question and I have made indications as to the relevant facts .................
"Its a murder trial for cying (sic) out loud"
I submit that it isn't a trial as no charges have been brought, and as such no accused has been brought before a court to enter a plea.
"His crime is a lot more serious"
Supposition, m'lud, as the person in question is merely being questioned under the process of the PACE Act for Serious Arrestable Offences. As yet the suspect in question is, erm, still being questioned and has yet to be charged with any offence.
May I remind the court this is not trial by media or comment boards.
Thank you m'lud. So entered.
It isn't a "murder trial" and all you have done is act as prosecution, jury and judge in one go. Like it or not there is due process of law.
In such cases that come under Serious Arrestable Offences as described in the PACE Act (Police and Criminal Evidence Act) the procedure is to effect an arrest on reasonable suspicion of prior knowledge of a crime or involvement. This is done so a suspect can be held for the time allowed under law to question as and when required. They have until then to make a charge or can release on police bail, which means the person must re-present themselves at the given time, or be released. However, the release without charge doesn't mean they cannot issue a warrant later if more definite evidence is found. If on police bail and there is insufficient evidence or no further evidence is forthcoming then you will be formally discharged as a "person of no further interest".
The law, no matter what you think or the dog in the street has told you, must be followed or suspects walk on technicalities. If the law isn't applied correctly then you and anyone else is in danger because anyone can accuse you. So your actual innocence doesn't matter.
You cannot have a justice system based on venal hatred no matter if the person suspected knows they are guilty and you have strong antipathy towards them.The process of law must be applied equally to "commoner or king" as they saying goes.
"‘ Reasonable suspicion’ means that the person making the arrest must actually have suspicion and also that the suspicion is on reasonable grounds. If the arresting person is acting on instructions he or she must have enough information to believe there are reasonable grounds for suspicion. This will always be a question of fact in the particular circumstances. It could be, for instance, that knowledge that the arrested person had an opportunity to commit the offence is reasonable grounds for suspicion."
This would come under the PACE Act as there being a reasonable suspicion he had prior knowledge that a crime was to be committed or involvement at some level.
If they determine that they may need to confirm any information from how questions are answered or in a statement given they can then release on Police bail.This doesn't mean any charges have been brought, merely that a person is required to return for further questioning.
There is no definition of marriage as being between one man and a woman. It is merely a construct that has no fixed boundaries or definitive rules. A law can be changed at anytime, thus no fixed definition exists.
Why do people keep making the mistake of confusing the ECHR and the EU as the same thing. They are separate.The ECHR was established in 1959. It only works when an application is made to it as any court of law is.
It is not over the heads of the population as there is a growing consensus that it should be equal for all, no matter the gender relationship and would only apply to two people, no more.
What? Some one disagrees with your ranting letter and that is "a poor show". Garbage that is an individuals right.
Four paragraphs of garbage. The only thing correct is that you can have a view that opposes such legislation, but must have a coherent and valid argument. Not a meandering and misinformed diatribe.
What basic facts? You have yet to provide any. All that has been done is try to make out 26 million are ready to pounce to take over 26 million jobs. Claim a percentage is the "truth" when it isn't even related to what it is claimed to be. The list goes on to include complete twaddle about UK contributions to the EU.
A ten year old would see that is mathematically totally improbable or unlikely. As already mentioned the employers would have to sack the person already in the job to hire them. There aren't 26 million jobs available neither. Very few jobs have been created at all and with figures ranging from 10 to on occasion 100 applying for the jobs then it is still the employers who pick who gets the job.
As for being shouted down, the evidence is that the small number of Kippers who are flooding media news websites with inane claims of being persecuted, oh the irony. The bizarre rants, when challenged, reveal racist tendencies to a fault. Repeatedly posters request policies from them. None are forth coming. Because of the snidey tack of not producing one till after the EU elections are over.
The other even more despicable tactic is MEP's and candidates for the position who are intent of just spoiling any process as best they can. That is if they turn up. Kippers have the worst record for attendance, take the money and run most certainly. Attend and participate like adults, oh no. Not only does this affect the UK's chances of productive involvement in any decisions, whether there is a desire to leave, which there isn't that has reversed itself to a positive remain in, but those committed to the EU are prevented from doing so.
Ukip are nothing but obnoxious, selfish, pathetic extremists who cry foul when the big league rules of politics are applied to them. If the evidence for not being xenophobic, racist or fascistic is the " I'm voting for Ukip so they can't be racist/fascist" then they have dredged the sewers of rational thought. Especially when proclaiming proudly that they have attracted voters who would be inclined to vote for the BNP.
Really, Reilly. "Good news chaps we bagged the BNP vote". The best one yet is William Henwood and his jibe at Lenny Henry. Mr Henry is from the Black Country. An area of England known as that because of the amount of coal mines, foundries, steel mills and such like kicking out pollution since the Industrial Revolution.
Oh by the way...............................
"A SURVEY by Black Country Chamber of Commerce shows that 61% of manufacturing businesses and 67% of service sector businesses view withdrawal from the European Union negatively. Ninder Johal, vice-president of the Chamber, said: “Black Country businesses view ties with the European Union positively within the context of strengthened sovereignty.”
Ukip really aren't going to help by being negative and absent for the greater part of any business in the EU chambers. It certainly isn't going to help Northern Ireland when much need funds are forthcoming form the EU while Westminster seeks to impose cuts.
Effectively Ukip are as much use to Northern Ireland, never mind anywhere else, as an ice cream frying pan.
In effect you can be debited for any outgoings, though the recipient won't receive them and any incomings are not added.
I made the proposal in answer to your infantile outburst on the other nest.
Do keep up.
An Onanist is some one who has a solitary repetitive habit usually to the point of a heightened outpouring. But is restricted to self satisfaction and doesn't benefit anyone else, except if done out of the sight of anyone else. The last bit they may like to seriously consider.
The correct term would Exhibitionist Onanist Order.
Otherwise, clunk head, look it up, there is a thing called the interweb now.
"The Grand Master of the Orange Order in England, Ron Bather, said in 2006 that “membership of a paramilitary organisation may not break the laws of the institution.”
I'll repeat that for you in simpler terms. A Grand Master of the Onanist Order is unsure if membership of terrorist organisations would break it's own laws. But Onanist Order member elected representatives and such as you never shut up about others being former, that is former, members of such organisations. So it is okay to be associated with them and form alliances with them, but not be former members of another now defunct and decommissioned organisation.
That right? Or is that blah, blah, blah, the well recognised form of legal messing about with terrorists coz it isn't a "them 'uns" type one?
Direct from the UK government proscribed terrorist organisations list..............
LIST OF PROSCRIBED NORTHERN IRISH GROUPS 7 April 2014
Continuity Army Council
Cumann na mBan
Fianna na hEireann
Irish National Liberation Army
Irish People's Liberation Organisation
Irish Republican Army
Loyalist Volunteer Force
Red Hand Commando
Red Hand Defenders
Ulster Defence Association
Ulster Freedom Fighters
Ulster Volunteer Force
How about Daithí McKay? Nah, he was born in 1982.
How about Christopher Hazzard? Oh no he was born in 1984.
How about Phil Flannagan? Ummm, no he was born in 1984.
How about Megan Fearron? Ah, not a chance she was born in 1991.
Ah here we go Sean Lynch, Gerry Kelly, Martin McGuinness, Alex Maskey, Pat Doherty was known to associate with the IRA, his brother was a member. Fra McCann, Jennifer McCann, Raymond McCartney, Rosaleen McCorley, Ian Milne, Carál Ní Chuilín, Pat Sheehan.
So the deal is that no Onanist or associated organisation members allowed to be representatives and no former IRA either. That is what you are proposing or are you suggesting a blah, blah, blah, blah, blah concommitant ratification where the Onanist Order decommission its armed wings and fess up to its crimes first before the Sinn Fein representatives step down. So that it is clear the Onanist Order and associated organisations will not take part in any more criminal terrorist activities.Twaddell will have to go too to ensure it is not a cover for Onanist Order/Loyalist terrorist operations.