|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:08 PM February 6th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Let's retry Rosa Parks for not giving up her seat to white folks. Let's retry Ghandi for not buying British shirts. Let's retry Mandella for trying to overthrow apartheid.
A senior judge expressed surprise today over a decision to retry Fathers 4 Justice campaigners accused of bringing traffic chaos to London.
"I can hardly believe what you are telling me," Judge Geoffrey Rivlin, QC, told the prosecution council at one stage.
Believe it, judge, you live in a feminazi controlled state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:57 PM February 6th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, at least we live in America. Where this sort of thing doesn't happen.
yet...,
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:42 PM February 6th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Trials are instigated by prosecutors.
The purpose of a trial is to reach a verdict.
In a jury trial, the jury is supposed to deliver the verdict - only one of two: guilty or not guilty.
This jury did not deliver a verdict as it could not reach agreement among its members, the jurors.
The prosecution now had two choices: it could abandon prosecution or re-try.
It would seem to be clear that the judge would have advised against re-trial.
The prosecutors chose not to hear His Honour's opinions- which is their prerogstive.
This seems to have peeved His Honour - well, so what?
The prescutors chose the latter; retrial.
That's their right if not their duty.
What's wrong with that?
Whatever may spring to mind, it's none of that.
Retrials happens all the time - even in the US, TC, even there.
The new trial will not necessarily result in a guilty verdict. It may acquit.
Whatever, there will be a result and therefore a precedent.
The Trial may even be aborted at a later stage. it's all very much a "work in progress".
If guilty, the Judge will determine the sentence which, while being within the law, may be "they shall be confined till the rising of this court" or "wholly suspended" or "Life in the Tower" - although that would seem to be unlikely, given the deplorable sanitary conditions in that Ancient Edifice. Anyway, I believe it has has been de-commissioned as one of HM's Prisons some time ago.
His Honour - or one of his Honourable Brothers - will have plenty of opportunity to make the Bench's opinions heard.
But whatever that result - it may be appealed, although in a minor matter like this that would also seem to be unlikely - unless there is, of course a real "Miscarriage of Justice".
Let's wait and see, shall we, rather than sound off?
I have great faith in the ultimate fairness of Her Majesty's Justice, in spite of its many shortcomings. I also trust the common sense of the defendants' peers who'll again sit in judgment of them.
Neale
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:59 PM February 6th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by AngryMan
(end_misandryNOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk)
on 11:45 AM February 8th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I have great faith in the ultimate fairness of Her Majesty's Justice, in spite of its many shortcomings. I also trust the common sense of the defendants' peers who'll again sit in judgment of them.
I think you're naive then my man - have you never heard of the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven, the Bridgewater Four, Winston Silcott, to name just a few. All men interestingly, apart from one of the Maguire seven. Where in Britain have you been living? In a cave somewhere?
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Raymond Cuttill on 05:00 PM February 6th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
The F4J Press Release is here
Fathers Slam Activists Re-trial
There’s more about the protest here.
London Gantry Protest Feb 2004
Re-trials take place in the UK (and the US) when a jury is hung, but usually only for a serious crime and only if the prosecution thinks it can present a better case next time. The ridiculousness of this is that it is a trivial offence. It is for “Endangering Road Users”, usually reserved for people who throw rocks at cars. Clearly all they’ve really done is trespass; which is why the jury couldn’t agree, but equally clearly the Government wants to make an example of Fathers 4 Justice but can’t get convictions on F4J protesters because most of what they do is at worst borderline minor offences, if that.
The Government’s attitude seems to be
Red alert! Election soon! Jail all fathers! Especially the uppity ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:35 AM February 7th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
"Clearly all they’ve really done is trespass; which is why the jury couldn’t agree, but equally clearly the Government wants to make an example of Fathers 4 Justice but can’t get convictions on F4J protesters because most of what they do is at worst borderline minor offences, if that."
Certainly minor, compared to what those black robed tyrants (devils) do to Fathers everyday. I think those black robed, feminist toadies are foolish to make myrtars of those good Fathers, who've been trying to call attention to the shameful way the government has hatefully been destroying Fathers, and the relationships between Fathers and children.
Those black robed misandrists seem to be trying to persuade themselves into believing, through some twisted logic, that retrying those good Fathers will somehow enhance their credibility, and the credibility of their laws. In reality, all they are doing is showing that prosecutors have the morality of the lowest of criminal minds.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Three F4J protesters who were cleared of conspiracy charges are, apparently, to be "retried" - that is, re-prosecuted for the same alleged crime! The story is