National News Disorder & Protests

Just because a journalist has a point of view, it doesn’t make it correct.

The media are the problem with their bias reporting. The BBC are one of the most dangerous organisations in this country for bias reporting.
Tugendhat is a Tory MP not a journalist. His words are reported.
 
I
Do you think he would have pled guilty if at the end of the trial there was a chance of the death penalty? If he had would the sentence not have been commuted to life anyway? If he had no chance of getting off would he have gone through trial for his own sick pleasure putting the families through that trauma? I think the lawyers in this case did the best thing for the victims families.

Just because she is a blond attractive young woman letby has been convicted of murdering babies. There is no doubt in law that she did it, and to that end in law she is the same cold hearted child killer.

Suggesting Letby is different is an insult to those murdered babies families, and frankly stinks of racism.

We have repeatedly posed the question to parliament about reintroducing the death penalty and they have repeatedly said no.

Everyone to their opinion but personally giving the state the power to kill people for crimes is a very dangerous step.
I’ve been reading Private Eye on this for a while and from what I have read I am very uncertain that this was anything close to a safe conviction. Major major misinterpretations of potential causes of death.
 
Do you think he would have pled guilty if at the end of the trial there was a chance of the death penalty? If he had would the sentence not have been commuted to life anyway? If he had no chance of getting off would he have gone through trial for his own sick pleasure putting the families through that trauma? I think the lawyers in this case did the best thing for the victims families.

Just because she is a blond attractive young woman letby has been convicted of murdering babies. There is no doubt in law that she did it, and to that end in law she is the same cold hearted child killer.

Suggesting Letby is different is an insult to those murdered babies families, and frankly stinks of racism.

We have repeatedly posed the question to parliament about reintroducing the death penalty and they have repeatedly said no.

Everyone to their opinion but personally giving the state the power to kill people for crimes is a very dangerous step.

I have consistently said that, where there is doubt then life/WLT applies.

Where there is zero doubt, like caught at the scene with the weapon then down the road you go.

No doubt as to guilt.

Preplanned.

Heinous.

And no, I don`t care about skin colour thank you. I will await Godwins appearance.
 
Didnt read the article, in fairness.

A Tory MP speaking belligerently about an opposition MP. It’s hardly news is it?
I think calling someone out for using irresponsible and dangerous language and perpetuating the spread of misinformation is a bit more than being belligerent.

Especially from someone like Tugendhat, who many a die hard Tory on here would've chosen as their leader, if it's a choice they'd been afforded.

Farage has form for this kind of thing (getting people all frothy and using half-truths and sensationalism to do it). Tugenhadt doesn't.

Tugenhadt has a reputation for being sensible and even-handed. Farage doesn't.
 
Didnt read the article, in fairness.

A Tory MP speaking belligerently about an opposition MP. It’s hardly news is it?
Fair enough. I personally think there is a far bigger problem of people in general not actually reading journalism properly, as there is with biased journalism.

Your second sentence could describe Faeage perfectly.
 
I think calling someone out for using irresponsible and dangerous language and perpetuating the spread of misinformation is a bit more than being belligerent.

Especially from someone like Tugendhat, who many a die hard Tory on here would've chosen as their leader, if it's a choice they'd been afforded.

Farage has form for this kind of thing (getting people all frothy and using half-truths and sensationalism to do it). Tugenhadt doesn't.

Tugenhadt has a reputation for being sensible and even-handed. Farage doesn't.

True that. :)
 
Just seen Rachel Reeve describe the murderer as an evil man, that will be her getting a telling off from the forum experts on using the language of a five year old to describe him.
Thanks for adding weight to my argument that it's childish to talk that way
 
Innocent until found guilty, unless we’re not sure she’s guilty cos she can’t be because she looks so nice.

The murders happened when she was on shift, she wrote horrible rambling notes about how she’d done wrong and was found guilty at trial, on a thorough basis.

What evidence is needed for the conviction to be safe?

By any measure given out by those that want capital punishment she should hang……
 
Just to be clear "circumstantial evidence" is still evidence and more than sufficient to conviction. Many murders have little in the way of forensics or independent witness statements, but those responsible are still convicted due to circumstantial evidence, behavioural analysis or confessions. All of these existed in the Letby case which resulted in her conviction.
 
I`m sure you know it is "beyond reasonable doubt" for a conviction.

The prosecution has to convince the jury that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented, the jury must be virtually certain of the defendant’s guilt in order to decide a guilty verdict.

Having sat in a jury room several times in every case there has been a "what if?" discussion but the decision was made on the weight of evidence provided.

In the Letby case there is a suggestion that some of that evidence might be flawed which is enough doubt for her to be serving a WLT.

Would be the same when I restore the DP. :)

Save the ultimate punishment for the most extreme cases where there is zero doubt.

So just to be clear, under your system, you're locking Letby up for the whole of her life without any possibility of parole despite publicly and clearly stating that you're not sure that she did it (because if you were sure, she'd be executed)?

I'm sorry, but that still seems like an insane and unfair system of justice (and one that the lawyers would have a field day with)

In my book, a justice system has to be yes or no (and you have an appeals system to make sure that everyone gets a second go in cases where their lawyers have screwed up their case).

Yes/No/Probably is not going to cut it.
 
So just to be clear, under your system, you're locking Letby up for the whole of her life without any possibility of parole despite publicly and clearly stating that you're not sure that she did it (because if you were sure, she'd be executed)?

I'm sorry, but that still seems like an insane and unfair system of justice (and one that the lawyers would have a field day with)

In my book, a justice system has to be yes or no (and you have an appeals system to make sure that everyone gets a second go in cases where their lawyers have screwed up their case).

Yes/No/Probably is not going to cut it.

No we are locking Letby up on a WLT because there is an element of doubt despite the verdict of the jury.

Scientists, journalists and others are already openly discussing the evidence and surrounding issues in the NN Unit. It normally takes years for such people to get onboard campaigns for review etc.



We don't lock up the Southport killer because of the 0% possibility it wasn't him, the preparation, the pre-meditation and the heinous crime.
 
No we are locking Letby up on a WLT because there is an element of doubt despite the verdict of the jury.

It's exactly the same thing.

I have doubt = I acknowledge that there is a less than 100% chance that she committed this crime = I acknowledge that there is a non-zero chance that I am locking this woman up for the rest of her life despite the fact she did nothing wrong.

If the judicial system not only openly admits its fallibility but actively makes that fallibility a core part of its sentencing system, then it is doomed.

If Letby's conviction was based on flawed evidence then that is what the appeals system is for - you have another chance to make sure the verdict is correct. You don't just shrug and say "well at least we didn't kill her" as you throw away the key.....
 
It's exactly the same thing.

I have doubt = I acknowledge that there is a less than 100% chance that she committed this crime = I acknowledge that there is a non-zero chance that I am locking this woman up for the rest of her life despite the fact she did nothing wrong.

If the judicial system not only openly admits its fallibility but actively makes that fallibility a core part of its sentencing system, then it is doomed.

If Letby's conviction was based on flawed evidence then that is what the appeals system is for - you have another chance to make sure the verdict is correct. You don't just shrug and say "well at least we didn't kill her" as you throw away the key.....

It really isn`t.

Bloke pre-plans a horrific attack, caught at the scene, preplanned what he was going to do and did it.

Letby the jury heard evidence that may not be as presented and convicted her "beyond reasonable doubt", but there is still an element of doubt.
More so if you read the reports on the NNU at Countess of Chester.
 
It really isn`t.

Bloke pre-plans a horrific attack, caught at the scene, preplanned what he was going to do and did it.

Letby the jury heard evidence that may not be as presented and convicted her "beyond reasonable doubt", but there is still an element of doubt.
More so if you read the reports on the NNU at Countess of Chester.

That is the job of the appeals court - if the evidence presented to the jury was incorrect or incomplete, then the appeals process is there to rectify those mistakes, and ensure that justice is served.

It doesn't mean that you should sentence on the basis of the balance of probabilities rather than the crime that's been committed.


And seriously - if you are convicting beyond reasonable doubt, then any doubt that remains is, by basic definition, unreasonable.

If you were actually in a jury making a guilty decision whilst still harboring reasonable doubts, then you shouldn't serve again because you've failed to understand the basic tenet of your duty.
 
That is the job of the appeals court - if the evidence presented to the jury was incorrect or incomplete, then the appeals process is there to rectify those mistakes, and ensure that justice is served.

It doesn't mean that you should sentence on the basis of the balance of probabilities rather than the crime that's been committed.


And seriously - if you are convicting beyond reasonable doubt, then any doubt that remains is, by basic definition, unreasonable.

If you were actually in a jury making a guilty decision whilst still harboring reasonable doubts, then you shouldn't serve again because you've failed to understand the basic tenet of your duty.

You got there in the end I think.

Stockport attacker - no doubt - down the road.

Letby - serve a WLT to leave room for appeal.
 
You got there in the end I think.

Stockport attacker - no doubt - down the road.

Letby - serve a WLT to leave room for appeal.

So the Stockport attacker doesn't have any right to appeal in your system?

Man, even the most bloodthirsty US states (Texas or Oklahoma, depending on how you define it) still have a mandatory right to appeal a death sentence, and the average time from conviction to execution is a little over a decade to make sure every person executed is convicted on the safest possible basis.

Now, the time varies - the more open and shut cases move quicker because there are fewer grounds for appeal. I think the record shortest is 10 months (for someone who plead guilty, and waived all his rights to appeal)

But the punishment is still meant to fit the crime. The punishment isn't decided by how worried the justice system is that it might have ****ed up.
 
So the Stockport attacker doesn't have any right to appeal in your system?

Man, even the most bloodthirsty US states (Texas or Oklahoma, depending on how you define it) still have a mandatory right to appeal a death sentence, and the average time from conviction to execution is a little over a decade to make sure every person executed is convicted on the safest possible basis.

Now, the time varies - the more open and shut cases move quicker because there are fewer grounds for appeal. I think the record shortest is 10 months (for someone who plead guilty, and waived all his rights to appeal)

But the punishment is still meant to fit the crime. The punishment isn't decided by how worried the justice system is that it might have ****ed up.

I would be very interested if anyone thinks he has any grounds to appeal. Still its all conjecture because we will be paying to keep him alive for decades........... unless another inmate does us a favour.
 
Back
Top Bottom