Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem
Well it's not unusual for people suspected of involvement in serious offences to be held in custody BEFORE being tried so unless you'd favour a wholesale change in that policy, I'm not sure what your point is. The fact remains that had that been the case here an innocent guy wouldn't be dead!
As regards the concept of innocent until proved guilty, I notice you didn't extend the same generosity you apparently argue for on behalf of murdering **** to Christine Pratt. As far as I'm aware she hasn't been found guilty of anything yet you were only too happy to jump on the bandwagon attacking her. Oh but then, her heinous 'crime' wasn't murder was it, it was disputing your beloved party's statements...
|
If the evidence was strong enough, i.e. if the police had enough ion him, he would have been remanded in custody. It has nothing to do with sentencing or punishment.
---------- Post added at 15:03 ---------- Previous post was at 15:03 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek S
So no-one should be held on remand then?
|
Please point to where I said that?
---------- Post added at 15:04 ---------- Previous post was at 15:03 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by RizzyKing
As with so many aspects flyboys standards depend whether it is good or bad for labour and the more he posts the more clear that becomes. I would like to know what they guy was on bail for and if it was a violent offence then why he was free to roan about when he was clearly a dangerous individual. But then whats one more dangerous individual on our streets when there are so many some of them shockingly released early as per the policy of our beloved government.
|
You know what, you really are starting to get quite boring with your attacks at me. Go and play elsewhere.