Jump to content

Aggy

Members
  • Content Count

    4,307
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Aggy

  1. People worry about test matches, but my guess is that one day 50 over games will be the first to become redundant.
  2. I haven’t bothered reading the rest of this thread but my guess is there is no sensible response to this.
  3. You’re going to have to explain this one to me. It took hundreds of years of scientific enquiry to figure out men are men and women are women? Were they all woke and lacking in common sense before and during those investigations?
  4. The government response says (p163 of below) average speeds on these areas was in the low 20s anyway - presumably even if it’s 30, you don’t drive at 30 the whole way - rush hour traffic, slow down when road narrows or if children are around, stop start at traffic lights/crossings, stuck behind cyclists etc. They reckon 3 per cent increase in journey times outside of cities, or 5 percent increase in city centres - so for a 2 mile trip solely in a 30 zone it would add half a minute… so these findings say anyway. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5bf2ba08ed915d1830158998/20mph-technical-report.pdf
  5. Wasn’t the ref Simon Hooper? Sky sports suggests Oli is Oli Kohout, the VAR Hub Operations executive, although another one of their articles suggests fourth official Michael Oliver.
  6. I’ve got an electric car (not a Tesla), insurance renewed last month - barely noticed the difference.
  7. GB News… what a bunch of leftie snowflakes…
  8. Yeah, should scrap anything below 60 in any location that doesn’t have a tram.
  9. Fair point actually about those in remote areas and lack of mobile signal - although surely the solution there is to boost signal in those areas. I’ve not had a landline phone at any place I’ve lived in since moving out of my parents’ house, so am probably not the person to comment… Although my grandparents, all in their 80s, video call me from their iPad.
  10. Relieved to hear they don’t all quit until at least conviction number 42. We should be alright for a while yet.
  11. Makes literally no sense. You’ve decided he’s not guilty based on a few online articles. I’m suggesting two detailed investigations think there’s enough to require a criminal trial to get to the bottom of it and I’m therefore more than content with a jury deciding after seeing all the evidence in detail.
  12. …in your opinion based on the very limited info in a couple of online articles.
  13. What makes it an even more bizarre stance (one which makes me suspect he or she is probably on a bit of a wind up) is that only a month ago LYB was demanding the death penalty for someone who, in a role as a community protector, was convicted of murder for offences carried out while on shift. I am not drawing comparisons between the two individuals or the circumstances of the cases, but the point is that just because you work in a high pressure job which the public depends on doesn’t mean you are above the law. Imagine if nurses never got prosecuted because of the fear they might all quit the NHS as soon as a charge was brought against one of their colleagues. I suspect LYB will say the difference is one was undeniably guilty before hand and one undeniably isn’t - based on a quick skim of a few vague BBC articles and a few posts on a football forum. Why waste a jury’s time!
  14. Not looked at that particular point, but only one PC in 35 years has been found guilty of unlawful killing. Charged with murder but cleared of that and found guilty of manslaughter. Charged pre-covid, convicted 2021. That was taser/excessive force rather than shooting.
  15. There are over 6000 armed police in the UK. Reports of 100-300 max handing in their weapons. That’s between about 1 and 5 percent. Most (all?) of whom are now back. Army lined up and not needed. Interesting that the other 95-99 per cent of armed police in the country seem to feel less strongly about this than you do.
  16. Given policemen have faced prosecution before and the police force still exists, I’d be significantly more concerned about police being above the law than your make-believe scaremongering.
  17. If they convict they will do so because they think he is guilty. That is all that is needed.
  18. Where I do agree with LYB is that if this goes to trial and is basically thrown out for a complete lack of evidence, then there is clearly a problem with the system. However, that problem would be with the investigations that have taken place already and/or the decision to prosecute, not with the idea that policemen should face a trial in the same way as anyone else. If he is found guilty, or even if he is found not guilty but it is clear why it needed to go in front of a jury to determine, then the system is doing what it should.
  19. Waffle waffle waffle. In much shorter summary, I was correct - you think the police are above the law. As to your point about the facts already being know, I’ll probably take the view of the IOPC and the CPS, who have actually done a proper investigation into the circumstances of the incident and think there is sufficient reason for a criminal trial to take place, over some chap on the internet who has read half an article online.
  20. You seem to think the ‘interests’ of armed police are more important than the actual law. What’s in my interest is knowing that if, following the proper investigations, a police officer is suspected of murder, the police officer in question faces a trial which will determine his or her guilt.
  21. Out of interest, what public pressure leading to a prosecution is there supposed to have been in this instance? I haven’t really paid it much attention until today. (And genuine question not making a point.. ) Had it been in the news over the last year or so? Don’t think I’d seen anything.
  22. Yes probably correct assuming he shot to kill or do grievous bodily harm - that would be intent and either be lawful or not I suppose. I suppose if he was intending to fire a warning shot but negligently managed to hit him that might come into play. As you say, shot to the head unlikely.
  23. Seemingly (a quick google - probably should have done that first) there have been a number of cases where police have been tried for gross negligence manslaughter for use of excessive force - and one found guilty. So if this clearly was an option open to the CPS, but they decided to go for a murder charge, it would certainly suggest the CPS thinks (after lengthy investigations) there is a bit more to this. And all the more reason you would think that it should indeed go to trial and not be hushed up because the policeman might be stressed by the trial.
  24. The stress point LYB raised was that the policeman and his family have the stress of a trial. That’s a different point.
  25. I obviously can’t speak for him but the below responses of his seem to be fairly suggestive that he is indeed suggesting armed officers shouldn’t face criminal trials but professional sanctions only. Which is partly the reason I raised the gross negligent manslaughter point for doctors. This isn’t being tried as a gross negligent manslaughter case. Could an armed policeman potentially commit negligent manslaughter if they ‘panic’ and shoot to kill when no other properly trained armed policeman would have done likewise? I’m not sure but can’t really see any reason why not in theory. But that doesn’t seem to be what’s suggested here - where the CPS clearly think there’s enough evidence to bring a murder prosecution, which must mean the CPS think there’s more to this than him making a ‘snap decision in the heat of the moment which turned out to be wrong” - presumably some sort of alleged motive being the difference. “There's much more wrong with this. Police officers are doing their job as instructed by their commanding officers how to deal with the situation Normal civilians don't have any authority to carry weapons or shoot civilians under any circumstances whatsoever. A police officer is therefore not operating according to normal law, but according to the rules of engagement stipulated by the police. Those are the standards against which officers should be judged, and any sanction should be purely professional, not personal, unless it can be shown that their motives for shooting had nothing at all to do with the conducting of their professional duties. To then put them on trial as a private individual like they were only there off their own bat doing their own thing is a disgrace. “ ”Thevery presence of armed police means it's viewed as an elevated risk situation for both the public and the officers. It's therefore wrong to put the liability for mistakes all on the officer with a personal charge for murder in asituation where they were doing their job whichnecessarily requires snap judgements in a situation where they have incomplete information.”
×
×
  • Create New...