Bert Posted 29 March 2012 Posted 29 March 2012 The link doesn't work, but if it's the story I think it is, it has been discussed to death before. All I can add is THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE IT WAS A RACIALLY MOTIVATED ATTACK. But you can't say for certain that it wasn't!
Guest Posted 30 March 2012 Posted 30 March 2012 But you can't say for certain that it wasn't! And you can't say for certain that it was. We could keep this one going for months, if you like. Criminal convictions are based on proving beyond reasonable doubt, not on the probability it might have happened. I'm actually pleased about this, there are enough miscarriages of justice as it is.
Guest MattP Posted 30 March 2012 Posted 30 March 2012 And you can't say for certain that it was. We could keep this one going for months, if you like. Criminal convictions are based on proving beyond reasonable doubt, not on the probability it might have happened. I'm actually pleased about this, there are enough miscarriages of justice as it is. To be honest anyone with half a brain would have realised there was a racially element to that attack, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks it's probably a duck, I think we all know the odds of no racial charge being submitted had it been 4 white girls attacking a muslim in a Niqab. The justice system seems to be full of middle class Liberal types whom this behaviour would never encounter their lives anyway. Here's the Stacey appeal today, conviction and sentance upheld. http://www.judiciary...-r-v-stacey.pdf To be honest I don't think the 50 odd days even matters, he's lost his Uni course, any prospects of a decent job, the whole country knows who he is and what he did that night he will never ever live down, it's pretty much a life sentence.
Guest Posted 30 March 2012 Posted 30 March 2012 To be honest anyone with half a brain would have realised there was a racially element to that attack, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks it's probably a duck Sadly, or thankfully, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise the courts would be full of people making assumptions without ANY EVIDENCE. I think we all know the odds of no racial charge being submitted had it been 4 white girls attacking a muslim in a Niqab. Probably the same as a man using excessive force on four women, regardless of the fact they were kicking his girlfriend? Or did you conveniently miss the judge's comments asking why Rhea Page's boyfriend wasn't charged with anything, as he said that the bloke went beyond using defence of another? Or the fact that Page and her boyfriend were also accused of being racist, and no charges were brought BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SODDING EVIDENCE!!! If I was asked to prosecute those four women for racially aggravated assault, I would be hunting down the person who'd authorised the charge, whilst praying the jury were too thick to understand the burden of proof. The justice system seems to be full of middle class Liberal types whom this behaviour would never encounter their lives anyway. Seriously? I mean, seriously? Where did you get that information from, the Sun? Diversity is a problem, but it's not middle-class liberals that dominate. I can assure you of that.
Bert Posted 30 March 2012 Posted 30 March 2012 And you can't say for certain that it was. We could keep this one going for months, if you like. Criminal convictions are based on proving beyond reasonable doubt, not on the probability it might have happened. I'm actually pleased about this, there are enough miscarriages of justice as it is. Just playing devils advocate!
Daggers Posted 30 March 2012 Posted 30 March 2012 To be honest anyone with half a brain would have realised there was a racially element to that attack, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks it's probably a duck And anyone with a whole brain would realise that this probably isn't the finest in logical deduction.
Guest MattP Posted 30 March 2012 Posted 30 March 2012 Sadly, or thankfully, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise the courts would be full of people making assumptions without ANY EVIDENCE. Probably the same as a man using excessive force on four women, regardless of the fact they were kicking his girlfriend? Or did you conveniently miss the judge's comments asking why Rhea Page's boyfriend wasn't charged with anything, as he said that the bloke went beyond using defence of another? Or the fact that Page and her boyfriend were also accused of being racist, and no charges were brought BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SODDING EVIDENCE!!! If I was asked to prosecute those four women for racially aggravated assault, I would be hunting down the person who'd authorised the charge, whilst praying the jury were too thick to understand the burden of proof. Seriously? I mean, seriously? Where did you get that information from, the Sun? Diversity is a problem, but it's not middle-class liberals that dominate. I can assure you of that. I'm pissed but I'll try and answer this as best as possible as I'm away for the weekend. Did the judge actually question that? I don't remember reading that anywhere, quite a bizarre question mind from someone in charge of a court case, I'm assuming when he asked that he hadn't seen the video and surely after all his years of experience on the bench he would realise charges are very rarely levelled against one person responding to four people after the four started the attack in the first place whilst his girlfriend was having her head kicked in on the floor. If he really did ask such a question after viewing the footage then he isn't really a fit and proper person to be judging these sort of cases. The reason I imagine no charges of racism were levelled at Rhea Page and her boyfriend was due to the fact in more and more cases we see like this where a white person has been the victim of an assault by multiple non whites that line quite often tends to come out from the attackers. I doubt even the CPS are taking such allegations seriously now. I won't respond to the usual Sun/Mail etc etc jibe, I think I missed the course everyone on here went on for that insult, seems to come up every time someone offers a different point of view. Diversity a problem? Good to see the courts have the priorities in order.
Rincewind Posted 31 March 2012 Posted 31 March 2012 Sometimes I worry about the average bloke on the street being on a jury. In fact I worry about if I was on a jury. I might cave in to the bullies that have decided on a verdict before listening to the evidence. Even if I could speed read a countless number of law books I don't think I could go against a judges decision no matter how much of a dodgery old fool I thought they were. It is their job to ensure that there is no reasonable doubt and if there is the black cap stays in the hat box.
Guest Posted 1 April 2012 Posted 1 April 2012 Did the judge actually question that? I don't remember reading that anywhere, quite a bizarre question mind from someone in charge of a court case Yes. Yes he did. The Mercury reported it. I'm assuming when he asked that he hadn't seen the video and surely after all his years of experience on the bench he would realise charges are very rarely levelled against one person responding to four people after the four started the attack in the first place whilst his girlfriend was having her head kicked in on the floor. If he really did ask such a question after viewing the footage then he isn't really a fit and proper person to be judging these sort of cases. That is your opinion versus the opinion of someone who has seen CCTV footage of more street attacks than you have. Do you honestly think any judge would make a comment like that without seeing the CCTV footage first? Deluded. The reason I imagine no charges of racism were levelled at Rhea Page and her boyfriend was due to the fact in more and more cases we see like this where a white person has been the victim of an assault by multiple non whites that line quite often tends to come out from the attackers. I doubt even the CPS are taking such allegations seriously now. There was no, or insufficient evidence to charge either side, that would result in a conviction. I know the CPS has its faults, but there's some fundamentally wrong if allegations are not taken seriously. I won't respond to the usual Sun/Mail etc etc jibe, I think I missed the course everyone on here went on for that insult, seems to come up every time someone offers a different point of view. If you'd got your opinion from the Leicester Mercury, you wouldn't be asking these questions. Diversity a problem? Good to see the courts have the priorities in order. The priorities of what? Or did you mean "their"? Don't you think diversity is an issue that needs addressing.
Finnegan Posted 1 April 2012 Posted 1 April 2012 The priorities of what? Or did you mean "their"? Don't you think diversity is an issue that needs addressing. Isn't it an old, old wooden ship?
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 1 April 2012 Posted 1 April 2012 We must not be harsh on Muslims who break the law. They are obviously above the law, and thus the smack on the wrist will do. Any form of punishment would be condemned as racist. by the would be "good doers" of this world.
AdamN Posted 1 April 2012 Posted 1 April 2012 We must not be harsh on Muslims who break the law. They are obviously above the law, and thus the smack on the wrist will do. Any form of punishment would be condemned as racist. by the would be "good doers" of this world. That's right, because no Muslim has ever been convicted of a crime, at all, ever. This is a fact that is an actual fact. Actually.
Captain... Posted 1 April 2012 Posted 1 April 2012 We must not be harsh on Muslims who break the law. They are obviously above the law, and thus the smack on the wrist will do. Any form of punishment would be condemned as racist. by the would be "good doers" of this world. Strewth I pop in here to escape idiots I see they are invading General Chat too. How about the fact they were punished, as first time offenders they got a punishment that fitted the sentencing guidelines laid out for these kind of cases, the exact same punishment as if it had been whites attacking blacks, or gays attacking straights or ginger people attacking bald people. In what way do you think you are more qualified to judge these people? Were you at the trial? Did you sit through all the evidence? Do you have years of legal training and experience and know the full extent of the law when sentencing people? I am guessing no to all of that so why do you think those that have, got it wrong? And this is not just to Dangerous Tiger but to anyone who spends 1 minute reading a newspaper article and thinks they are qualified enough to know better than the judge in a case like this.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.