"Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Which would normally mean he hadn't been convicted of anything. Or do you belive in guilty before being proved innocent?

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...

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.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Which would normally mean he hadn't been convicted of anything. Or do you belive in guilty before being proved innocent?

So no-one should be held on remand then?

[Flyboy]

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 ----------

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 ----------

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.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

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

That wasn't your argument though was it?

Which would normally mean he hadn't been convicted of anything. Or do you belive in guilty before being proved innocent?

To which I replied that being held prior to trial (i.e. before being convicted of anything as you put it) isn't unusual and had it applied here an innocent man wouldn't be dead at the hands of a thug. You see I have a feeling that all that tough talk on crime we've been subjected to since 1997 hasn't been translated into prison places and I suspect that's more to do with why some people are realsed on bail when they shouldn't be.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Osem

That wasn't your argument though was it?



To which I replied that being held prior to trial (i.e. before being convicted of anything as you put it) isn't unusual and had it applied here an innocent man wouldn't be dead at the hands of a thug. You see I have a feeling that all that tough talk on crime we've been subjected to since 1997 hasn't been translated into prison places and I suspect that's more to do with why some people are realsed on bail when they shouldn't be.

Okay, under what circumstances and with what evidence, do you believe he should have been remanded in custody?

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Okay, under what circumstances and with what evidence, do you believe he should have been remanded in custody?

Under what circumstances and with what evidence do you believe he should not have been remanded in custody? Oh yes, I recall the nub or your prevuous argument - it was the innocent until proved guilty line wasn't it...

[Flyboy]

I have no idea, I have no reason to know, but I see you are still dodging questions. How about answering the question, instead of attempting to pretend that if you ask the same question back, no one will notice you haven't a got a clue what you are talking about.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I have no idea, I have no reason to know, but I see you are still dodging questions. How about answering the question, instead of attempting to pretend that if you ask the same question back, no one will notice you haven't a got a clue what you are talking about.

That's really rich coming from someone who seemed to think the concept of being innocent until proven guilty precludes the possibility of being remanded in custody and routinely avoids answering questions in these forums, especially when they reveal New Labour's utter ineptitude. We're still all awaiting your thread dedicated to all their successes you know....

[Arthurgray50@blu]

For years everyone goes on about tough on crime etc, the basic answer is, the courts, they are far to soft on offenders. When l was a kid, parents and POLICE were allowed to whack kids for being nuaghty with the parents permission, now it has all been stopped, and they are allowed to get away with it, its that simple, When l was at school, you got the cane or the slipper, now they can't do that.

IF people know they will get away with it, they will commit more crime, IF they go to prison, they will learn about how to commit more crime when they come out, so it goes round in a circle.

I don't think it is much of a stretch that this individual was probably on bail for a violent offence given he then went off and killed someone so probably should have been in custody till trial. Sadly there are too many instances in this country of people dying at the hands of people that shouldn't be free in the first place exactly how many does it take before someone in authority actually gets the message because for me one person was one too many.

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I have no idea, I have no reason to know, but I see you are still dodging questions. How about answering the question, instead of attempting to pretend that if you ask the same question back, no one will notice you haven't a got a clue what you are talking about.

Sorry,but.....

Originally Posted by bjorkiii

Cameron will sort it all out his absolutley marvelous

Apparently in readiness for his biltz on crime cameron is turning into T.Blair esq.

http://www.martintod.org.uk/blog/?cat=32

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Osem

That's really rich coming from someone who seemed to think the concept of being innocent until proven guilty precludes the possibility of being remanded in custody and routinely avoids answering questions in these forums, especially when they reveal New Labour's utter ineptitude. We're still all awaiting your thread dedicated to all their successes you know....

In other words, you have absolutley no evidence that his person should have been remanded in custody, have you?

Originally Posted by Flyboy

In other words, you have absolutley no evidence that this person should have been remanded in custody, have you?

Why are you defending this person?