george b

Resident Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


george b last won the day on March 5

george b had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

36 Reputable

1 Follower

About george b

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

333 profile views
  1. We are talking about a specific case, there seems little doubt he did it, the issue is was it a crime. In that situation if he pleads guilty, then there is no presentation of evidence, are you sure youve been inside a court room? nb I don't use punctuation as I'm lazy and its not an English exam, but now I know it annoys you, Il do it just for fun, init
  2. no you quite clearly said there was a burden of proof on the prosicution in this case, and there clearly isnt/wasnt
  3. there isnt a burden of proof on the prosicution if a guilty plea is entered. I'm not at all sure you have ever been in a court
  4. so after reading all that, the best you,can do, it he must be guilty as he went guilty. I think thete is a equally good case for saying if he went not guilty, he would have been found not guilty. next you will be telling me that innocent people have nether pled guilty . Or that there are not lots of innocent people in jail
  5. if the guy pleads guilty the guidlines don't matter, they have a very good chance of a conviction, which is really all they care about
  6. your just ignoring the law completely, possibly as you haven't bothered to read that or the cps guidelines before posting. the issue isn't if he wanted to shock people, I'm not sure shocking people has ever been an offence, nor is posting something that is distressing, upsetting or heartbreaking, its if he wanted to grossly offend people, that's at issue.or at least knew it would a picture of a dead body is either grossly offensive or its not, you cant say this one isn't and this one is
  7. as a general rule you cant appeal if you went guilty. no one is dealting with the point that pictures of a dead body are not deemed to be even offensive in every day life,
  8. but he went guilty, the court decided nothing only the sentence, though court have been know to misapply the law, hence the appeal that are successfully. Lodges but we are talking about someone who is poor, ill educated and quite possibly not with English as a first language. The court system is accepted to treat such people unfairly. you faith in the court system is touchingly simplistic at best
  9. no it wouldnt grossly offend me, i would find it extremely distressing, but not in any way offensive nether mind grossly so, but he didn't send it to the relatives, he put it on social media, they would have to go and find it, that's even of they were capable of recognising the remain as their relative. something can't be grossly offensive by context, either the picture is or it isn't grossly offensive. I remember. A picture from the summer land fire,of a badly burnt child in the wreckage, it was one the front page of nearly every new paper. No one that i can remember thought it grossly offensive just very very sad, then there was the picture of all the lraq troops, burt to a chrisp in the first gulf war, that was all over the papers. that wasn't publish so as not to offend the relatives . this isn't a made up event to gross people, it was a resl picture of a real event. That really shouldnt be censored. there seem a good case that they didn't want the picture published, tp prevent a wide spread out break of anger, and that's the ptb protecting themselves through censorship
  10. well as we,said above, its difficult to say either way when someone has gone guilty but a look at the cps guidelines, revised after the police kept bringing silly cases to court. Say the message must be grossly offensive, not in very bad taste, not just very offensive. but GROSSLY offensive, further more the sender must intend it to be offensive or at least know it to be so. so is a picture of a dead body grossly offensive. Well no, not in the general scheme of things, I've seen countless pictures of badly burnt bodies on the evening news and in news papers. You cant claim this to be grossly offensive just because he isn't a journalist or a main stream news organisation. Ether pictures of badly burnt bodies are grossly offensive or they are not.
  11. I'm what?
  12. your being to hard on yourself, one of your posts made sense
  13. your also using generics statistics' to back up your claim. so to be certain, you have no actual data that connects the two, you are just certain the two are connected and you want the government to change the law based on no compelling evidence what so ever?
  14. well apart from your maths, we are in agreement, they have been acting in some part unlawfully for 33 years
  15. they have been that way since 1984, can you show some actual connection between the number of stop and searches and the amount of knife deaths. . That might help if you want to convince the government to go against hundreds of years of freedom. unless of course you are claim that the terrorist knife attacks wouldn't have happen