Justice ?

[Supervox]

The Grandmother of Ellie Lawrenson, the 5yr old girl killed by a Pit Bull has been aquitted of manslaughter !!

So, I guess that it's ok to get off your head on booze & dope then let a dangerous dog into a room with a child ?

Addressing the jury, the judge said:

"This is an unusual case which had given rise to very strong emotions.
"Suffice to say, the greatest sentence passed in this case is a life sentence of regret this lady has passed on herself."

A lifetime of regret ? Sure - but a guilty verdict & a long custodial sentence would also have been appropriate in my opinion.

[rigor]

The Grandmother of Ellie Lawrenson, the 5yr old girl killed by a Pit Bull has been aquitted of manslaughter !!

So, I guess that it's ok to get off your head on booze & dope then let a dangerous dog into a room with a child ?

Addressing the jury, the judge said:

"This is an unusual case which had given rise to very strong emotions.
"Suffice to say, the greatest sentence passed in this case is a life sentence of regret this lady has passed on herself."

A lifetime of regret ? Sure - but a guilty verdict & a long custodial sentence would also have been appropriate in my opinion.

I totally agree. Criminal negligence in this case. She knew that the dog and the girl were not to be left alone. It was a family rule.

[Filipe M.]

TBH I was surprised at the verdict myself... :-k

[Jester666]

Yet another case showing how lenient or justice system can be!

What a huge pile of c**p!

Stoned & Pi**ed in charge of a child and dangerous dog? Madness!

[Tomcat]

This case highlights an off shot issue for me becuase I actually think there should be laws or quide lines at least about drinking or taking drugs when looking after kids.

The amount of times I have been to 'family' functions and ended up coming away because people are p*ssed and behaving like loats, and I don't want my kids to see it, and these people have their own kids with them!

Ceratinly not justice IMHO

[Warthog]

You can't just say regret is punishment enough unless it was an accident?! Pffff, one big chav family, who cares.

[Luckypants]

Acquited by a jury of her peers. Say no more.

[Pedro68]

This woman was "in charge of a dangerous dog". A dog, that caused the death of her grandaughter. Had she been "in charge of a car" that caused the death of her grandaughter, would this woman have still been acquitted? I don't believe justice has been done, but then I'm not the one who has to live with it. IMO.

[Spiderman]

but you all seem o forget that the Govt has handed down a directive to the courts that only the most dangerous criminals should be locked up...cos the jails are too full.

Well you know what, build some new ones then and get the scum that deserve to be off the stret behind bars!!

Yet some poor old codger like Ronnie Biggs (and many other like him) are kept in jail to serve the the country's establishments need to "punish" someone.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

but you all seem o forget that the Govt has handed down a directive to the courts that only the most dangerous criminals should be locked up...cos the jails are too full.

********. The government had nothing to do with it, as she was acquitted by a JURY, not a judge.

None of us know the details, so no-one's in a position to say squat.

[Supervox]

. . . None of us know the details, so no-one's in a position to say squat.

Er, excuse me but isn't that what living in a 'free' country means ?

That we CAN have an opinion ?

In my original post I merely stated that IN MY OPINION the decision was wrong - & neither you or anyone else will EVER tell me what opinion I can or can't have !!

[Biker Biggles]

I don't have a problem with this.The jury heard the case and came to a verdict and more power to them for coming to their own verdict contrary to what the baying mob seemed to be demanding.
Yes that is justice.

[Sid Squid]

As said more than once above:

The legal system did what it should, the JURY acquitted her.

In fact I can't think of what more the system could have done, they clearly couldn't have charged her with murder, manslaughter being the stiffest charge that could have been brought, which they did.

Now the owner of the dog should have borne some responsibility, no? He was jailed recently for ownership of a banned breed, but I would have thought that he should have been prosecuted in connection with the death, rather than for the ownership. But then the specifics of the law aren't known to me here, perhaps that's not possible.

[Samnooshka]

Word fail me :(

[SoulKiss]

This case highlights an off shot issue for me becuase I actually think there should be laws or quide lines at least about drinking or taking drugs when looking after kids.

The amount of times I have been to 'family' functions and ended up coming away because people are p*ssed and behaving like loats, and I don't want my kids to see it, and these people have their own kids with them!

Ceratinly not justice IMHO

No offence Tomcat, but your post sums up what is wrong with public thinking at the moment.

People getting stabbed, create another knife law.

For years a Leatherman multi-tool was always in my pocket or on my belt - a badge of my geekdom and a useful tool. (it was the R1 of the Leatherman range back when I got it - with some cool mods :P )

If I carry it now I could get into big trouble - I know I asked a cop in a police station when I was in reporting a lost mobile phone.

Having it in my pocket or belt, where it is accessible would be worse than in the bottom of a rucksack, but I could still get into trouble either way.

So now you have me, if I carry what is a very useful mini-tool kit, I am a criminal.

I use this as an example because the law in place was already up to the job, ie you stab someone you get into trouble.

Carrying a knife should not be a crime in itself.

The law should only be changed when a totally new thing comes along, or it has become outdated.

Not to criminalise people "just because".

EDIT Addition

In my ranting state I forgot to add that surely the law says a child should be looked after by a competent adult below a certain age. If the adult was incompetent at the time, then I am sure there must be a law that deals with that on the books, so no need for a new law.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Er, excuse me but isn't that what living in a 'free' country means ?

That we CAN have an opinion ?

No.

In my original post I merely stated that IN MY OPINION the decision was wrong - & neither you or anyone else will EVER tell me what opinion I can or can't have !!

Fine, if you wish to base your ill informed opinions on subjective info pulled out of a jurnos @rse.

A group of people no different to you or I looked at the FACTS, and decided she was innocent. How you can come to the conclusion that they're wrong and you're right when all you have to go on is hearsay and conjecture is utterly stupid. This kind of ignorant knee-jerk reaction is a perfect example of how little the general population understands the legal system and precisely why people SHOULDN'T voice their opinion.

[ThEGr33k]

Its all feckered up in my opinion.You get a longer jail sentence for drugs than rape... Hmmm i dint know if that should be right. Rape should be a death penalty. Only problem with that is proving it was rape and not just sex... So i guess that cant happen. Killing someone unlawfully should be death penalty - especially if it is a planned kill... a cold blooded murder. (that should free up some space).

I think there is one major thing that is causing the Jails to be so full and that is its easy. They get fed quite well considering, get all the comforts and when they com out they get bennefits and given a job (which they usually lose because they dont want to work). These are the SCUM that should be put in a conscript army and sent into iraq and the middle east, then they can earn their money and freedom!

Another fact i wouldnt mind bringing up is that prison accomodation on average is better than the armed forces who are risking their lives for our country (and for some reason other peoples countries), so these scum can do what they do. (and another minor thing while im bitching is that when the forces are out in a war zone they are on less than £2.50 an hour!!!! HEH :smt013

[tomjones2]

Unless I'm mistaken it takes a small part of the jury to say not guilty and she not guilty is it 2 out of the 12? If this is correct it means that a small part of the jury may have felt sorry for her and said not guilty.

I feel very sorry for this woman she does not appear to be capable of looking after children. The girls parents have got to be held to account as well, why the hell did they leave her with this woman after they already had a problem with the dog. I'm sure they were aware that she smoked herb and drunk as well, not an ideal babysitter.

However I find it suprising that she wasnt convicted, it has been farily well reported in the press unlike and it would appear that she let a dangerous dog in with children. I though it was adults job to protect children from the avoidable dangers of this world.

I saw a clip of her and she was very upset, she will have to live with the conseqences of her actions and being in the family there will be very few places to turn, would prison punish her more, who knows. I really understand what people are saying about supidity not being an excuse, maybe an example should be made here.

I would be amazed if there wasn't an appeal

[Tomcat]

No offence Tomcat, but your post sums up what is wrong with public thinking at the moment.

People getting stabbed, create another knife law.

For years a Leatherman multi-tool was always in my pocket or on my belt - a badge of my geekdom and a useful tool. (it was the R1 of the Leatherman range back when I got it - with some cool mods :P )

If I carry it now I could get into big trouble - I know I asked a cop in a police station when I was in reporting a lost mobile phone.

Having it in my pocket or belt, where it is accessible would be worse than in the bottom of a rucksack, but I could still get into trouble either way.

So now you have me, if I carry what is a very useful mini-tool kit, I am a criminal.

I use this as an example because the law in place was already up to the job, ie you stab someone you get into trouble.

Carrying a knife should not be a crime in itself.

The law should only be changed when a totally new thing comes along, or it has become outdated.

Not to criminalise people "just because".

EDIT Addition

In my ranting state I forgot to add that surely the law says a child should be looked after by a competent adult below a certain age. If the adult was incompetent at the time, then I am sure there must be a law that deals with that on the books, so no need for a new law.


mmm, I take your point, and it did cross my mind when typing it, that is why i then put 'or at least guide lines' in the post. I agree with your opinion on the nanny state ... but that is what we have already become, and it seems to me that common sense has gone out the window now, so we have to use the facility that is available to us.

I like your point about the leatherman, but neither drink nor drugs are useful tools ;) I know that is not the point you were making, it is the nanny state issue. How about some guide lines maybe in the 'good parenting paphlet' ..... that should influence plenty of people who would otherwise ignore any recommendations :D

So do you have a problem with the drink and drive law? Some laws are good, some bad, and some are taken too far and out of context.

(Don't yawn ;)) maybe something along the lines of 'parenting without due care and attention'! She made a decision to let the dog in the house, which if sober she may not have even considered, not thinking logically. (oh all this is IF in fact it has been reported correctly that she was drunk/stoned!!)


ps: I'm not tee total or anti-drink/drugs, just when in charge of kids. Language and behaviour beomes much more 'adult' and inapropriate, IMO :0

[Flamin_Squirrel]

mmm, I take your point, and it did cross my mind when typing it, that is why i then put 'or at least guide lines' in the post. I agree with your opinion on the nanny state ... but that is what we have already become, and it seems to me that common sense has gone out the window now, so we have to use the facility that is available to us.

You can't combat a lack of common sense with the nanny state, that's what's contributing to it in the first place.

Unless I'm mistaken it takes a small part of the jury to say not guilty and she not guilty is it 2 out of the 12? If this is correct it means that a small part of the jury may have felt sorry for her and said not guilty.

No offence, but this is another indication of how utterly wrong peoples view on the justice system is. Two stories in the paper:

'"Guilty" person let free'
'Person who's been locked up for 20 years is found to be innocent'

Which are people going to see as the greater injustice? Going to be the first one isn't it? Well, I can't think of anything more scary and unjust than being locked up for a crime I didn't commit.

[sarah]

Didn't the woman let the dog inside because there were fireworks outside and the dog was scared?

[K]

Was she actually found 'Not Guilty' or 'Aquitted'?
I only ask because I'm not sure whether there's a difference - does one mean that the jury found her innocent, whilst the other means that they couldn't actually come to a conclusive verdict based on the evidence they heard?

And yes, I'm sad and watch too many American cop/crime shows, so my real-world UK knowledge is pathetically lacking. :oops:

[Kinvig]

Didn't the woman let the dog inside because there were fireworks outside and the dog was scared?

or huingry?

[G]

Grandmother of a 5 year old at 45..........abouts sums it up really.

Although I think its wrong she got away with it.

I also think its wrong that they kept a dog locked outside at new year when fireworks were going off all over the place.....its no wonder the dog was going mental.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Although I think its wrong she got away with it.

Grr.

She didn't get away with ANYTHING!

Skipping the country or the police/cps burning all the evidence by mistake the night before the trial is 'getting away with it', being aquitted isn't.

No wonder so many people think the justice system doesn't work - it's cos they don't have the slightest clue about what justice is.

[The Basket]

And yes, I'm sad and watch too many American cop/crime shows, so my real-world UK knowledge is pathetically lacking. :oops:

Small point. Scotland has its own laws which are separate from England.

English law..not UK law.

[G]

Grr.

She didn't get away with ANYTHING!

Skipping the country or the police/cps burning all the evidence by mistake the night before the trial is 'getting away with it', being aquitted isn't.

No wonder so many people think the justice system doesn't work - it's cos they don't have the slightest clue about what justice is.

Firstly for someone who must know so much about the justice system and the term in question, to the point where they can ridicule other peoples knowledge of the justice system, its spelt acquitted...and the definition is

'the term used when a jury returns a verdict of not guilty, which means that the jury did not find that the State proved the defendant committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt'

So for whatever reason she has been found not guilty of manslaughter despite her clearly being the responsible person in charge of the child at the time, the responsible person in charge of the dog at the time it killed the child and all whilst being off her face on drugs and alcohol.

Now its not murder, she didn’t intentionally go out of her way to let the dog kill the child...but she was responsible for them both and her own action which ultimately led to the child being mauled, All responsibility was hers as she was left in charge hence manslaughter.

It's all irrelevant anyway and there no point falling out about it :P :D

[Ed]

Poor Ellie. She didn't ask to be born into a family like that. And what a horrible end. From what I read on the BBC and elsewhere, had I been on the jury, I would have convicted. But I wasn't, the BBC can be selective, and as FS rightly says, we don't have a full picture. But it seems wrong in principle to me that a woman who knew that the dog was a banned breed, and a vicious brute, and who knew not to let it into the house, and yet did so, should walk away scot free.

[Jester666]

Grr.

She didn't get away with ANYTHING!

Skipping the country or the police/cps burning all the evidence by mistake the night before the trial is 'getting away with it', being aquitted isn't.

No wonder so many people think the justice system doesn't work - it's cos they don't have the slightest clue about what justice is.

What do you mean by "she didn't get away with anything"?

As far as I can work out, aquitted is basically getting let off with no punishment.
This is what has happened in this case despite the following >>

1. Left in charge of a minor
2. Proved to be under the influence of drugs and alcohol
3. In charge of a banned breed and dangerous dog

There is a law that makes it illegal to be in charge of a minor whilst under the influence of alcohol.

Why was the dog allowed anywhere in the country if it is a banned breed?

So 2 laws broken.

As someone else pointed out, if she had been driving and had killed a minor she would have probably been sentenced to a term inside.
But according to her peers/lawyer its ok to be out of it when theres a minor and dangerous dog in the same building.
Something not right there.

So from what I can see she HAS got away with it.

Just my opinion though! ;)

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Firstly for someone who must know so much about the justice system and the term in question, to the point where they can ridicule other peoples knowledge of the justice system, its spelt acquitted...

If bringing up a typo is the best you can do... :?

I wouldn't profess to know alot about the justice system, just the basics. The most fundamental rule being, innocent until proven guilty. In fact, most people probably know about this principle. For some reason however, it's often immediately forgotten about in a fit of righteous indignation when the 'evil jury' in defiance of 'justice' outrageously come up with the 'wrong decision'.

All responsibility was hers as she was left in charge hence manslaughter.

...which she was found not guilty of.

[Jester666]

If bringing up a typo is the best you can do... :?

I wouldn't profess to know alot about the justice system, just the basics. The most fundamental rule being, innocent until proven guilty. In fact, most people probably know about this principle. For some reason however, it's often immediately forgotten about in a fit of righteous indignation when the 'evil jury' in defiance of 'justice' outrageously come up with the 'wrong decision'.



...which she was found not guilty of.

Hence, got away with it!!

[G]

Hence, got away with it!!

Exactly....which is crazy

I dont claim to know any more about the justice system than the next person, but its clear to see that its very wrong and that she has got away with nothing other than guilt.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

What do you mean by "she didn't get away with anything"?

As far as I can work out, aquitted is basically getting let off with no punishment.
This is what has happened in this case despite the following >>

1. Left in charge of a minor
2. Proved to be under the influence of drugs and alcohol
3. In charge of a banned breed and dangerous dog

That's what we know to have happened based on the selective information that we've been given. For all you know there could well be mitigating factors that havn't been made public.

Hence, got away with it!!
Exactly....which is crazy

I dont claim to know any more about the justice system than the next person, but its clear to see that its very wrong and that she has got away with nothing other than guilt.

Are you such fools that you consider it right to judge people guilty after they've been found innocent?

[G]

Are you such fools that you consider it right to judge people guilty after they've been found innocent?

Why is that so foolish, double jeopardy wasnt scrapped within the uk for fun, it was scrapped because jurys CAN be very wrong.

Anyway I can see this topic will sooner or later take a turn for the worse as I dont like being called a fool and will end up taking it personally, so I will bow out of the topic lol :smt045.

[Jester666]

That's what we know to have happened based on the selective information that we've been given. For all you know there could well be mitigating factors that havn't been made public.




Are you such fools that you consider it right to judge people guilty after they've been found innocent?

1. For all you know there may not be. What mitigating factors could there possibly be for being drunk and stoned whilst in charge of a minor, never mind the dog!?

2. Given the information the has been available yes I do think its right. Its not as though a jury ever made a mistake is it? Guildford 4 & Birmingham 6 ring any bells? Derek Bentley?

Because we live in a country that allows free thought and speech I am allowed to have an opinion. In MY opinion she has got away with manslaughter.

[Pedrosa]

Please remember people that within the structure and guideline of the charges against this woman the key element of "intent" was not proven.

Taken that we have only been fed the more "scandalous" details I can understand people,(particularly parents) being outraged that such a catalogue of irresponsible behaviour which in part or whole led to the death of an innocent young child.

If we simply learn the consequences of such irrational or wreckless behaviour and no child ever suffers the same plight, then Ellie has not been lost in vain.

[Jester666]

Please remember people that within the structure and guideline of the charges against this woman the key element of "intent" was not proven.

Taken that we have only been fed the more "scandalous" details I can understand people,(particularly parents) being outraged that such a catalogue of irresponsible behaviour which in part or whole led to the death of an innocent young child.

If we simply learn the consequences of such irrational or wreckless behaviour and no child ever suffers the same plight, then Ellie has not been lost in vain.

Well put!! :thumbsup:

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Why is that so foolish...

Because you're advocating mob justice, a return to witch hunts, all of which we've spent hundreds of years developing a justice system that gets away from all of that.

...double jeopardy wasnt scrapped within the uk for fun, it was scrapped because jurys CAN be very wrong.

Double jeopardy has got nothing to do with jurys making a wrong decision at all. It was scraped because the police and CPS are becoming increasingly incompetant, and when they inevitably bungle a case it means they get another bite at the cherry.

Yes it's possible that it'll do some good in that a guilty person acquitted in a previous trial may eventually be convicted. However the negative results will be far worse.

1) Innocent people will inevitably be dragged through multiple trials.
2) Police/CPS get even more sloppy in their work, knowing that they no longer have to get it right first time can pull new evidence out of their **** at a later date.
3) Increased legal costs of bringing more trials to court.

The bottom line is, the greatest injustice is to lock up an innocent person, not to let a guilty person go. This is why the burden of proof lays so heavily on the prosecution. ANY DOUBT means not guilty, and this is ultimately the reason this seemingly guilty woman was found not guilty.

[tomjones2]

Please remember people that within the structure and guideline of the charges against this woman the key element of "intent" was not proven.

Taken that we have only been fed the more "scandalous" details I can understand people,(particularly parents) being outraged that such a catalogue of irresponsible behaviour which in part or whole led to the death of an innocent young child.

If we simply learn the consequences of such irrational or wreckless behaviour and no child ever suffers the same plight, then Ellie has not been lost in vain.


Not sure but I though manslaugher was killing someone thorogh your actions (or lack of), isn't intent to kill murder. Dosn't this case come under crimial negligence?

[Pedrosa]

Not sure but I though manslaugher was killing someone thorogh your actions (or lack of), isn't intent to kill murder. Dosn't this case come under crimial negligence?

Perhaps it does fall in to that category, but it was deemed more appropriate by the CPS tp persue a charge of manslaughter. Just maybe some more *fitting* punishment might have been metered out should the Criminally Negligent charge have been preferred? Who knows? I am certainly no expert who can define which charge the details fitted best.

[Spiderman]

********. The government had nothing to do with it, as she was acquitted by a JURY, not a judge.

None of us know the details, so no-one's in a position to say squat.


Errm, calm down mate. And the b word aint exactly U rated so how come that got thru? Anyhoooooo.

Have you ever spent time in a court, with and without juries? Well the judge always does some summing up of the case and in case where thers is a jury he also "guides" the jury towards a decision.

As many others have said there is no real reason why this person wasnt dealt with under law. The judge seems to have steered the jury into believing that the fact the woman has to live with the guilt is enough punishment hence they acquitted her.
Muder can only be commuted to mansalughter if the intent cant be proved as Pedro said before. mansalughter cannot be comuted to a lower charge and i fail to se why this person was found to be not guilty if she was the responsible adult in attendance.

Yo can be tried for the same offence as others if you were there with them and did nothing to stop them. IE i can be done for criminal damage if i was with a mate who was grafitting and i did nothing to stop him.

The law, however, is an ass so it never makes sense in these sort of cases. However Jordan, you really need to calm down about what views others have.

As Supervox said before we are all entitled to our opinions and views, whther they be spot or or way off the mark. You telling peeps they are not entitle to a view does little for your arguments mate.

You and i often see things from the same side of the fence yet when you encounter a view diffrent from your you act as tho it IS wrong.
i prefer to try and convinvce people of my point of view and the reasons i have that view and if they choose to agree with me then fine...if not, equaly fine.
Not ********! ;)

[Flamin_Squirrel]

No offence to your good self ment, you seem a fairly sensible bloke.

I just get wound up when people spout rubbish as it were a matter of a fact. When questioned of course they'll say 'oh but it was just my opinion'. Now I might well have an opinion on quantum physics, but I'd never be daft enough to voice them with any kind of authority, let alone state them as a point of fact!

I've no problem with other peoples opinions, only when they come up with a rubbish argument and fail to justify it.

[Spiderman]

No offence to your good self ment, you seem a fairly sensible bloke.

I just get wound up when people spout rubbish as it were a matter of a fact. When questioned of course they'll say 'oh but it was just my opinion'. Now I might well have an opinion on quantum physics, but I'd never be daft enough to voice them with any kind of authority, let alone state them as a point of fact!

I've no problem with other peoples opinions, only when they come up with a rubbish argument and fail to justify it.


"Sensible Bloke"??? C'mon Jordan you've met me so you know thats only half true at best ;)
And i know what you mean but i could accuse you of the same behaviour.

Now, i have been watching a series on BBC4 recently called Atom and it was all about, well errm, atoms n stuff like that. So i know enough about quantam physics to know that our entire universe is only one of millions of atoms under a giants fingernail.
So any opinons?
Anyone?

[Filipe M.]

So any opinons?
Anyone?

Always wash your hands after you take a leak. Fact.

[Biker Biggles]

Thats ******** Spidi and you know it.
How dare you reduce Quantus psychics to such utter drivvle.
Its much simpler than that.:stupid:

[Supervox]

Flamin Squirrel

Just exactly where do you get off calling people "fools" & "stupid" just because they dare to have a different opinion to yourself ?

The whole point of my original post was that here on a public forum I have a means to vent my OPINION . . .

o·pin·ion –noun

1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

. . . that in this case the jury, the verdict & sentence were wrong.

Now, if you don't like or agree with MY opinion then argue, debate, discuss, reason with people to get YOUR opinion across - but don't resort to cheap, name-calling as this :-

(a) Gets people p*ssed off
(b) Is the last resort of someone who has run out of reasonable argument
(c) Is just plain childish !!

[Spiderman]

So any opinons?
Anyone?

Always wash your hands after you take a leak. Fact.

ROFPMSL.


Nice.

[Jester666]

Flamin Squirrel

Just exactly where do you get off calling people "fools" & "stupid" just because they dare to have a different opinion to yourself ?

The whole point of my original post was that here on a public forum I have a means to vent my OPINION . . .

o·pin·ion –noun

1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

. . . that in this case the jury, the verdict & sentence were wrong.

Now, if you don't like or agree with MY opinion then argue, debate, discuss, reason with people to get YOUR opinion across - but don't resort to cheap, name-calling as this :-

(a) Gets people p*ssed off
(b) Is the last resort of someone who has run out of reasonable argument
(c) Is just plain childish !!



Well put. Reminds me of your old signature!! :D Thats how I was feeling as well!

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Well put.

Really? So tell me, where other than the outpouring of moral outrage has anyone put forward any solid evidence that the jury acted improperly and was 'wrong'?

[neio79]

Well you know what, build some new ones then and get the scum that deserve to be off the stret behind bars!!

.
Completely agree, rather than wasting the money the government gets in our taxes use it for building the things we need!!


For years a Leatherman multi-tool was always in my pocket or on my belt -
If I carry it now I could get into big trouble - .
Ahh yes, I have a Gerber very similar, as do a lot of the Forces. Its worn on my belt.

Have never had a copper tell me to remove it.

And was not aware that I was breaking the law by having it there. It’s a tool for work though.

[Jester666]

Really? So tell me, where other than the outpouring of moral outrage has anyone put forward any solid evidence that the jury acted improperly and was 'wrong'?


Where's your evidence?

You have the same facts as me but have chosen to interpret them in a different way!

The difference is I'm not going to start calling you names as you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine!

You think the verdict is ok, I don't! End of!:nomore:

[SoulKiss]

Completely agree, rather than wasting the money the government gets in our taxes use it for building the things we need!!


Ahh yes, I have a Gerber very similar, as do a lot of the Forces. Its worn on my belt.

Have never had a copper tell me to remove it.

And was not aware that I was breaking the law by having it there. It’s a tool for work though.

You probably wouldnt get a cop tell you about it - but if you were stopped and searched and they had a target to meet.....

At the time of getting the information it was in my pre-biking days (so over a year ago) and I was travelling through Paddington daily, which is where they were trialling the portable metal detectors to find things like knives.

So I didnt risk it.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Where's your evidence?

No it doesn't work like that. If you're basically saying that the jury are guilty of perverting the course of justice it's you that must present your evidence.

You have the same facts as me but have chosen to interpret them in a different way!

The difference is I'm not going to start calling you names as you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine!

You think the verdict is ok, I don't! End of!:nomore:
All we know is a jury, who DID have all the facts found her not guilty. It's the only solid fact we the public have and it's not open to interpretation. Why is this so difficult to understand?

[Jester666]

No it doesn't work like that. If you're basically saying that the jury are guilty of perverting the course of justice it's you that must present your evidence.


All we know is a jury, who DID have all the facts found her not guilty. It's the only solid fact we the public have and it's not open to interpretation. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Why is is so difficult for you to understand that not every one is going to think along the same lines as you?

I'll say it one more time for the cheap seats....

In My Opinion I Think The Verdict Was Wrong!!

Loud enough this time? :rolleyes:

I think it is wrong because she was drunk and stoned whilst in charge of a minor. There was also a banned dog in the house. She was left in charge and therefore should be held responsible.

If you think the verdict is correct...fine, I respect your right to think that. Try to respect my right to disagree with you.
My opinion is formed from the facts I have heard/read. If other evidence/mitigating circumstances arise to contradict my opinion then, and only then, will I re-evaluate my position.

Is it ok for me to form an opinion on the facts that have been presented to me? Or should I just follow what you think?

**Jester closes his interest in this thread!**