Quote: Jennie @ 15th May 2014, 11:52 AM BST

No, what's happened is that someone has made an allegation about him sexually assaulting them. What they are doing now is having a trial to see if it is true or not.

I can't cope with all this 'should be chucked out of court' nonsense that people spout. The point of court is to get to the truth. We examine everything in detail and the jury decide. If they decide "not guilty", that doesn't mean the process has been any less valuable.

View original

I don't see the revelance of the card though. If there was a serious complaint, then yes, settle it in court. This piece of "evidence" doesn't help matters.

Well, it builds a picture. The prosecution say it is further evidence of inappropriate conduct, the defence say otherwise. The jury can then decide what they make of it,.

Quote: Jennie @ 16th May 2014, 9:11 PM BST

Well, it builds a picture. The prosecution say it is further evidence of inappropriate conduct, the defence say otherwise. The jury can then decide what they make of it,.

View original

That might be reasonable if it was being introduced as character evidence, accept I would have thought that it would be inadmissible as such, which is presumably is why the CPS are pressing charges that they know have no hope of sticking, in order to circumvent that.

Quote: Tursiops @ 16th May 2014, 8:19 PM BST

Seriously with some of the women in the DLT case, if they were sufficiently traumatised by what DLT is alleged to have done to contact the police twenty years later, then they really need to get out less.

View original

Victims of DV can take that time so it's not surprising that sexual assault, especially under age against someone they believe that society would believe over them, could take as long or longer.

Quote: Oldrocker @ 16th May 2014, 10:42 PM BST

Victims of DV can take that time so it's not surprising that sexual assault, especially under age against someone they believe that society would believe over them, could take as long or longer.

View original

These women were not under age. And in one case DLT was basically accused of dancing a bit too close.

Don't get me wrong, I am not in favour of blokes acting like a jerk around women. I am just a bit uncomfortable about someone being charged with a criminal offence twenty years later, when the CPS know there is no chance of a conviction, just so that he can be painted as being a bit pervy, in the hope that this will bias the jury into accepting their shaky main case.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-27441754

Because they are total and utter twats?

Understated

Mr S, defending, said there had been a 'slowing' of Patel's offending in the last two years.

Ever tried that one Jennie?

Umm yeaahhh, okaaaay...

A Utah politician wants to bring back firing squads as a method of execution after controversy over a botched lethal injection in Oklahoma.

Republican Representative Paul Ray believes death by gun is a more humane and cheaper form of execution, and wants it to be an option for criminals sentenced to death in his state.

He plans to introduce his proposal during Utah's next legislative session in January.

Lawmakers in Wyoming and Missouri tried to pass similar legislation this year, but both efforts failed.

Mr Ray believes firing squads may seem more acceptable now, especially after drug shortages complicated lethal injections.

The default method of execution in the US also came under heightened scrutiny last month when prisoner Clayton Lockett's vein collapsed and he died of a heart attack more than 40 minutes later.

"It sounds like the Wild West, but it's probably the most humane way to kill somebody," Mr Ray said.

"The prisoner dies instantly. It sounds draconian. It sounds really bad, but the minute the bullet hits your heart, you're dead. There's no suffering."

So why would you need a whole squad?
He's just got a hard on for Westerns.

Quote: zooo @ 17th May 2014, 10:13 PM BST

So why would you need a whole squad?
He's just got a hard on for Westerns.

View original

Because, to save individuals from thinking they killed someone, a proportion of the guns are filled with blanks, which means they don't know if it was them or not that killed the prisoner.

Ooh, really?

Quote: Oldrocker @ 17th May 2014, 10:16 PM BST

Because, to save individuals from thinking they killed someone, a proportion of the guns are filled with blanks, which means they don't know if it was them or not that killed the prisoner.

View original

Why would you do that job in the first place if you didn't want the idea of killing someone weighing on you?

Quote: zooo @ 17th May 2014, 10:18 PM BST

Ooh, really?

View original

In some cases one or more members of the firing squad may be issued a weapon containing a blank cartridge instead of one housing a live round.[1] No member of the firing squad is told beforehand if he is using live ammunition. This is believed to reinforce the sense of diffusion of responsibility among the firing squad members, making the execution process more reliable. It also allows each member of the firing squad to believe afterward that he did not personally fire a fatal shot[2]-for this reason, it is sometimes referred to as the "conscience round".

In more recent times, such as in the execution of Ronnie Lee Gardner in the American state of Utah in the United States in 2010, a rifleman may be given a "dummy" cartridge containing wax instead of a bullet, which provides a more realistic recoil.[4]

Quote: Matthew Stott @ 17th May 2014, 10:21 PM BST

Why would you do that job in the first place if you didn't want the idea of killing someone weighing on you?

View original

Orders Dear Boy, orders.

What a world.