Search found 10399 matches

by Bonefishblues
28 Mar 2024, 1:36pm
Forum: The Tea Shop
Topic: Sweage Releases Into Rivers
Replies: 4
Views: 92

Re: Sweage Releases Into Rivers

Psamathe wrote: 28 Mar 2024, 1:23pm
Biospace wrote: 28 Mar 2024, 12:48pm ... Big business is acting as it wishes, beyond the control of Government.
Thames Water is getting interesting given their dividend payments, debt and not investors demanding a massive bill increase, in effect customers paying for their failings and dividends. Even where we are now (40% bill increase demand) is going to stir up a lot of ill-feeling through their region even though OFWAT has refused the increase. If it were my decision I'd be fining them for every illegal sewage release until they go bust, let the Gov. buy the company for £1 and keep it under public ownership. I'd be doing that for every water company. None of this "temporary nationalisation" the Gov. are mentioning as a possibility.

Feargal Sharkey was very good in his TV appearances yesterday - knew his stuff (facts), presented them in a clear balanced concise manner, allowed the "other party" to have their say un-interrupted and then countered it with clear, simple fact.

I feel like writing to the water company covering my area asking for the money I paid for sewage disposal to be refunded as they have not been doing what I've been paying them for. Every moderate rain and people have sewage in their gardens (not mine). Been happening since I've lived here (15+ years) and water company never investigates as tiny village into ditches into small river so no monitoring guages.

Ian
Feargal has been crusading on this for years, as have I in my own very small way. OFWAT has failed in its Statutory Duty - that's the bare fact. As to why, then that gets murkier, like most outfalls from STWs :(
by Bonefishblues
27 Mar 2024, 12:33pm
Forum: The Tea Shop
Topic: Jihadi Brides and their Children.
Replies: 576
Views: 24181

Re: Jihadi Brides and their Children.

She has never been a Bangladeshi citizen, but up until age 21 she had the option to apply (Bangladesh said it would have been rejected anyway) by virtue of her parents' birth. Now she cannot.
by Bonefishblues
25 Mar 2024, 5:03pm
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15319

Re: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

thirdcrank wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 5:00pm
Bonefishblues wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 4:50pm For those who want to dig deeper into the offence then the Crown Court's own 'bible' is here. It includes prototypical Jury Instructions and much else:

https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-r ... ompendium/

Part 1 19-5 onwards refers to this offence. On the criminal act element, I thought this was a helpful guide:

A useful rule of thumb is to begin by asking what would have been charged if noone had died.
A lot to go at but I've begun reading
You really only need to look at that section, which isn't too onerous. It's pretty well written, I think.
by Bonefishblues
25 Mar 2024, 4:50pm
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15319

Re: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

For those who want to dig deeper into the offence then the Crown Court's own 'bible' is here. It includes prototypical Jury Instructions and much else:

https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-r ... ompendium/

Part 1 19-5 onwards refers to this offence. On the criminal act element, I thought this was a helpful guide:

A useful rule of thumb is to begin by asking what would have been charged if noone had died.
by Bonefishblues
25 Mar 2024, 11:43am
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15319

Re: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

Nearholmer wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 11:34am There’s been a properly constituted trial, and the defendant was found guilty.

As I understand things, there is to be an appeal against the conviction. That will go to court, and the court will decide.

Courts aren’t perfect, they do occasionally make errors, but they are far better equipped to decide these things than a forum on the internet. And, BTW, matters of “intent” seem always to be difficult for courts to decide, and often become the subject of appeals.

Let’s wait to see what the court decides.
The Appeal Court rejected an earlier submission of appeal on the grounds that the sentence was excessive, so these alternative grounds were put forward. Notwithstanding its earlier rejection, I think the CofA still has the ability to reduce the sentence in this hearing (alternatively it can reject the appeal, or uphold it and quash the conviction)

I completely agree with your other point - we have only a fraction of the information needed to determine this (albeit it's now being taken forward on different, narrower grounds) so we would be wise not to make definitive statements.
by Bonefishblues
25 Mar 2024, 11:37am
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15319

Re: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

cycle tramp wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 11:20am
Bonefishblues wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 9:44am
The definitive truth isn't there. One aspect of a very great deal of evidence is there.
If you write to convince others, then this is your concern. If you write to convince me, then you waste your time. His holiness the Pope could bless the defendant himself, and still my mind would not change
You've made your view abundantly clear. That's not necessarily synonymous with either the truth, or objectivity.
by Bonefishblues
25 Mar 2024, 9:44am
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15319

Re: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

cycle tramp wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 9:30am
Bonefishblues wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 9:15am
cycle tramp wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 9:12am

We do not need any men in wigs nor the ramblings of people whose joy of life fled their existence years ago to tell us wherever or not a crime has been committed. It is witnessed. Whether or not the appeal is successful or otherwise for many of us on this forum she is damned to a pitiless existence, and no charitable works or fine arguments will convince otherwise...
Your post illustrates better than I could why those individuals are needed to facilitate the determination of guilt or innocence by a correctly instructed Jury of our peers, I would strongly suggest.
I was a jury member once. Neither the defence nor the prosecution appeared to be interested in the definite truth, only their version of it. The lawyers themselves seemed less interested in the outcome and more of their payment. It was a waste of time, the only things which grew were tge wallets of those involved. Chess, but with real people as the playing pieces

In this case, the definite truth is there to see. The forum members can make their own mind ups. It matters not. This thread could run until it was so large, God himself would have to notice it, and even then that wouldn't bring back the beloved family member who was taken due to the foolish actions of someone who perhaps was better off in care, and only allowed out under supervision.
So was I. Perhaps coincidentally I found the Jury took its job very seriously, and considered a detailed and very technical case at length. The arguments of counsel were helpful, albeit the Prosecution seemed to be rather taking a conviction for granted, I thought. Similarly the Judge's summing up & Instructions framed our conversations as a Jury. Seemed to me to be the antithesis of a waste of time.

The definitive truth isn't there. One aspect of a very great deal of evidence is there. Considering anything less than the whole of the evidence is likely to result in injustices.
by Bonefishblues
25 Mar 2024, 9:15am
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15319

Re: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

cycle tramp wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 9:12am
Bonefishblues wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 8:59am
rareposter wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 8:55am

Other than the minor one of (inadvertently) killing a person. 🤷🏻‍♂️
Inadvertently killing a person may well not be a crime.
We do not need any men in wigs nor the ramblings of people whose joy of life fled their existence years ago to tell us wherever or not a crime has been committed. It is witnessed. Whether or not the appeal is successful or otherwise for many of us on this forum she is damned to a pitiless existence, and no charitable works or fine arguments will convince otherwise...
Your post illustrates better than I could why those individuals are needed to facilitate the determination of guilt or innocence by a correctly instructed Jury of our peers, I would strongly suggest.
by Bonefishblues
25 Mar 2024, 9:00am
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15319

Re: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

mjr wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 8:21am
Valbrona wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 3:36am As tragic as it was, I can't think of any crime that the defendant committed.
Assault. If not, why not?
Equally, what that you have seen satisfies you than an assault was committed?
by Bonefishblues
25 Mar 2024, 8:59am
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15319

Re: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

rareposter wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 8:55am
Valbrona wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 3:36am As tragic as it was, I can't think of any crime that the defendant committed.
Other than the minor one of (inadvertently) killing a person. 🤷🏻‍♂️
Inadvertently killing a person may well not be a crime.
by Bonefishblues
25 Mar 2024, 7:52am
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15319

Re: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

Sum wrote: 24 Mar 2024, 11:02pm
Bonefishblues wrote: 24 Mar 2024, 10:19pm
Sum wrote: 24 Mar 2024, 10:18pm Regarding Judge Enright's directions of law to the jury not containing the unlawful act: I thought it did. It mentions it several times in the explanation of manslaughter and self defence.
I referenced his 'decision tree' of questions to the Jury such that they can reach their verdict. I don't see a relevant question/decision point in that.
You mean specifically the section headed "route to verdict"? I took the relevant question(s)/decision point(s) here as being the list of questions establishing whether what took place might have been an accident, self-defence or unlawful violence. Admittedly it doesn't mention the latter, it seems to rule out the lawful use of force i.e. by accident, in self-defence, and with reasonable force and other aspects covered in the previous sections e.g. being mistaken and reacting on the spur of the moment etc.

I don't know if the list of questions are correct or complete though, or if this is the correct way of doing things. Grey's lawyers seem to think that something is wrong here.
That seems to me to be at the heart of things, yes. If a Judge (quite correctly in a complex case) gives a decision tree to a Jury such that they can reach a verdict, then it must be completely watertight.
by Bonefishblues
25 Mar 2024, 7:51am
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15319

Re: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

cycle tramp wrote: 24 Mar 2024, 10:31pm
Bonefishblues wrote: 24 Mar 2024, 10:27pm You have formed an opinion based on an aspect of the evidence presented at trial. Please stop saying we.
I'd actually watch the clip from sky before you make any further comment. That's not my opinion, in the post above - it's my witness statement from having seen the footage.

Again my thanks to Sun for this clip. As difficult as it is to witness, I hope everyone watches it. We owe the deceased that much.
I have watched it many times.

Thank you for removing 'we'
by Bonefishblues
24 Mar 2024, 10:27pm
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15319

Re: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

You have formed an opinion based on an aspect of the evidence presented at trial. Please stop saying we.
by Bonefishblues
24 Mar 2024, 10:19pm
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15319

Re: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

Sum wrote: 24 Mar 2024, 10:18pm Regarding Judge Enright's directions of law to the jury not containing the unlawful act: I thought it did. It mentions it several times in the explanation of manslaughter and self defence.
I referenced his 'decision tree' of questions to the Jury such that they can reach their verdict. I don't see a relevant question/decision point in that.
by Bonefishblues
24 Mar 2024, 10:13pm
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15319

Re: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

cycle tramp wrote: 24 Mar 2024, 9:59pm If one goes all the way back to the first bbc news report, the defendant stated that 'she may have put out her arm to defend herself'... I believe that this is the part which is missing from the footage, and I believe that this is the action to which the court paper's refer.
If this has been covered in the original court case then what we have may be a physical connection or an attempt thereof with the cyclist which sends them off the pavement. In which case there is the intent to harm, wrapped in a statement to suggest self defence.
That might emerge if she won her appeal and the state determined that a re-trial would be in the public interest.

It will not form part of the appeal.