6 coppers to take him down or 1 member of the public with his bike? 
 

 

 

Why does everyone want instant full details to stuff like this.. you’d think that even the numbnuts knew that it takes time for the full story to emerge.

2 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

Why does everyone want instant full details to stuff like this.. you’d think that even the numbnuts knew that it takes time for the full story to emerge.

So they can be even more outraged, and ideally find people to blame immediately.

There is a reason the CPS, generally, don't release a lot of detail before it goes to court, sadly people want to know every details straight away. The worrying thing is that when information isn't released, the Twitter m0ngs go into overdrive and start making stuff up, which then becomes the "truth"

Hence in the Southport case, it went from being an illegal boat person, so the son of a Rwandan crime lord (who was represented in court by Kier Starmer), all of these lies became facts, and proof of a Government coverup

America seem to be cracking on with deportations yet an immigration lawyer over here estimates it could take 50-75 years to clear our lot 🤦🏻

 

 

2 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

Why does everyone want instant full details to stuff like this.. you’d think that even the numbnuts knew that it takes time for the full story to emerge.

There was a decent discussion on the radio the other day. Basically saying that the rest of society has moved on. This means that holding back information to ensure a fair trial leaves a gap that gets filled by rumours and untruths especially from social media, so you have to find a way protect the trial but also fill the void. 
It does open a whole world of issues. With Southport the CPS agreed some extra info could be given as although he was 17 he was nearly 18.

5 minutes ago, royal white said:

America seem to be cracking on with deportations yet an immigration lawyer over here estimates it could take 50-75 years to clear our lot 🤦🏻

 

 

America is just different 😂. Just read that there are about 40000 foreign nationals in their military. You can be an undocumented immigrant , join the army, do a tour of duty and still not be a citizen. Good to know that Trump is going to take down the cartels as part of this drive. Clearly smashing the gangs is a good policy. 

37 minutes ago, Ani said:

America is just different 😂. Just read that there are about 40000 foreign nationals in their military. You can be an undocumented immigrant , join the army, do a tour of duty and still not be a citizen. Good to know that Trump is going to take down the cartels as part of this drive. Clearly smashing the gangs is a good policy. 

They can get expedited citizenship while serving in the military, which I would say would be a cheaper option then going though normal channels

4 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Hmm, can understand that they will be uncomfortable, but the details were laid bare by the judge as part of his (required) summing up.

Some of those on live feed which is a relatively new feature of the legal system.

Maybe such video links should be stopped then?

 

They can ask to keep it secret unfortunately though when the details are made public, people want to hear what's happened.

Why anyone would want to know is beyond me, 

8 minutes ago, only1swanny said:

They can ask to keep it secret unfortunately though when the details are made public, people want to hear what's happened.

Why anyone would want to know is beyond me, 

So they can virtue signal about how they'd love to kill/torture the purpetrator, usually in the most violent way they can possibly imagine. It is very weird.

Edited January 24, 20251 yr by Cheese

Did alarm bells not ring when she registered the births

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5ye7p34235o

And more locally, what about this (drink?) Driver in horwich

Lucky to only kill her fella, so it seems

Seems a very lenient sentence

2 hours ago, Zico said:

yeah, that's what i thought

it's hard to connect the dots sometimes

but a lot of people are shouting "keir starmer cover up" and a lot of people seem to believe it

 

Mainly because they didn’t vote for him, are still bitter about the defeat and are looking for any opportunity to blame him for everything that’s wrong.

it requires less critical thinking.

15 minutes ago, Casino said:

And more locally, what about this (drink?) Driver in horwich

Lucky to only kill her fella, so it seems

Seems a very lenient sentence

Got a link? Is this the one from last Xmas on lever park avenue?

3 minutes ago, Spider said:

Got a link? Is this the one from last Xmas on lever park avenue?

Supping at rivi barn one

Gimme a minute

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/24879496.woman-killed-partner-crash-horwich-leaving-wedding/

11 minutes ago, Casino said:

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/24879496.woman-killed-partner-crash-horwich-leaving-wedding/

Shit was that 3 years ago.  I remember walking up there as it happened and hearing some screams then about a thousand blue lights.

Thats a serious let off she’s had there

12 minutes ago, Spider said:

Shit was that 3 years ago.  I remember walking up there as it happened and hearing some screams then about a thousand blue lights.

Thats a serious let off she’s had there

He's the friend of a friend the lad that dies. Presumably she's got such a light sentence because the kids would have also lost their Mum if she'd been sent down for years. One day they're going to find out the truth about what happened. Imagine the trauma of that? Poor little buggers 😞

58 minutes ago, Casino said:

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/24879496.woman-killed-partner-crash-horwich-leaving-wedding/

80mph down the roads back from rivi barn is asking for trouble 

Probably she didn't get breathalysed because they were too busy trying to save lives and sort out the mess first 

Folk who were there will know if she was drinking or not and there are witnesses 

So she's very fucking "lucky" not to get sent down 

Presume she would have got time if proved to over the limit 

And if so, What's the difference between dangerous driving and drink driving

2 hours ago, London Wanderer said:

Why does everyone want instant full details to stuff like this.. you’d think that even the numbnuts knew that it takes time for the full story to emerge.

It's what happens under normal circumstances. 

Nothing unusual.

It stops tittle-tattle etc.

There is a reason that Merseyside police have admitted that they wanted to reveal more than they were allowed. 

There are myriad lawyers etc saying it could and should have happened. 

If it was simply a mis-judged assessment by the CPS, then say so. Instead they're doubling down.

If not, then were they leaned on?

Even the PM's recent statement of "a new type of terrorism" has been shot down. Even more so when the line from the authorities was and still is that it wasn't a terrorist act.

There is also the newly revealed bit of information that members of the privy Council knew of these details; but they aren't allowed to reveal what they know. 

This again all leads to accusations of cover ups.

In exactly the same fashion as the situation over inquiry into grooming gangs.

It's a right old muddle.

10 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

It's what happens under normal circumstances. 

Nothing unusual.

It stops tittle-tattle etc.

There is a reason that Merseyside police have admitted that they wanted to reveal more than they were allowed. 

There are myriad lawyers etc saying it could and should have happened. 

If it was simply a mis-judged assessment by the CPS, then say so. Instead they're doubling down.

If not, then were they leaned on?

Even the PM's recent statement of "a new type of terrorism" has been shot down. Even more so when the line from the authorities was and still is that it wasn't a terrorist act.

There is also the newly revealed bit of information that members of the privy Council knew of these details; but they aren't allowed to reveal what they know. 

This again all leads to accusations of cover ups.

In exactly the same fashion as the situation over inquiry into grooming gangs.

It's a right old muddle.

You're the one in a right old muddle.

8 hours ago, Not in Crawley said:

And this was pre meditated - he wasn't hearing voices or anything. Whilst he's obviously a psychopath that's not enough to warrant being sectioned as he knew exactly what he was doing. He just didn't care.

Indeed. Eldest is a psychologist. Did a spell working with psychiatrists and did cases where folk pleaded mental health issues

iirc and happy to be corrected. If you have mental health problems you generally don’t have the capacity to plan ahead for stuff like this. It’s off the cuff. Not  voices in the head and the like

Planned stuff is simply “born evil” or “indoctrinated” or both to put in very simplistic terms

Bulger killers, Yorkshire Ripper, other serial killers. All planned and carefully carried out. Enough mental capacity to dismiss the mental health argument

Edited January 24, 20251 yr by MancWanderer

42 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

It's what happens under normal circumstances. 

Nothing unusual.

It stops tittle-tattle etc.

There is a reason that Merseyside police have admitted that they wanted to reveal more than they were allowed. 

There are myriad lawyers etc saying it could and should have happened. 

If it was simply a mis-judged assessment by the CPS, then say so. Instead they're doubling down.

If not, then were they leaned on?

Even the PM's recent statement of "a new type of terrorism" has been shot down. Even more so when the line from the authorities was and still is that it wasn't a terrorist act.

There is also the newly revealed bit of information that members of the privy Council knew of these details; but they aren't allowed to reveal what they know. 

This again all leads to accusations of cover ups.

In exactly the same fashion as the situation over inquiry into grooming gangs.

It's a right old muddle.

To be fair, the current law (and Prevent rules) mean his actions aren't deemed as terrorism. That is a fact, no ifs no buts.

That could likely now change because of this lunatic. That requires laws passing through Parliament making it so.

 

51 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

It's what happens under normal circumstances. 

Nothing unusual.

It stops tittle-tattle etc.

There is a reason that Merseyside police have admitted that they wanted to reveal more than they were allowed. 

There are myriad lawyers etc saying it could and should have happened. 

If it was simply a mis-judged assessment by the CPS, then say so. Instead they're doubling down.

If not, then were they leaned on?

Even the PM's recent statement of "a new type of terrorism" has been shot down. Even more so when the line from the authorities was and still is that it wasn't a terrorist act.

There is also the newly revealed bit of information that members of the privy Council knew of these details; but they aren't allowed to reveal what they know. 

This again all leads to accusations of cover ups.

In exactly the same fashion as the situation over inquiry into grooming gangs.

It's a right old muddle.

The reason Starmer said it is a new type of terrorism is because it doesn’t not fit the current definition. 
 

It is totally logical what KS said and nothing has been shot down. 

Edited January 24, 20251 yr by Ani

Just now, Winchester White said:

To be fair, the current law (and Prevent rules) mean his actions aren't deemed as terrorism. That is a fact, no ifs no buts.

That could likely now change because of this lunatic. That requires laws passing through Parliament making it so.

 

That is right.

Hence the murders were treated as a criminal case.

Yet they found ricin and terrorist materials for which he was charged under separate laws, pertinent to the evidence.

It is those findings that weren't revealed straight away: things which other similar, successful searches elsewhere have been.

As I said before, Starmer has now referred to it as terrorism, which doesn't look good in that context.

Whether it was or wasn't terrorism isn't the main issue anyway; it is simply the questions over why this case appears to have been handled differently to other events.

You'll never get concensus between lawyers (nor economists etc) but it isn't the odd one saying the official reasons are wrong. There are plenty.

6 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

That is right.

Hence the murders were treated as a criminal case.

Yet they found ricin and terrorist materials for which he was charged under separate laws, pertinent to the evidence.

It is those findings that weren't revealed straight away: things which other similar, successful searches elsewhere have been.

As I said before, Starmer has now referred to it as terrorism, which doesn't look good in that context.

Whether it was or wasn't terrorism isn't the main issue anyway; it is simply the questions over why this case appears to have been handled differently to other events.

You'll never get concensus between lawyers (nor economists etc) but it isn't the odd one saying the official reasons are wrong. There are plenty.

What difference does or did it make?  I don't understand this yearning to have known stuff beforehand.  I thought stuff awaiting trial was always kept under wraps but maybe you know different. Maybe his age was a factor, dunno but I certainly won't be losing any sleep over it.

 

23 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Whether it was or wasn't terrorism isn't the main issue anyway; it is simply the questions over why this case appears to have been handled differently to other events.

Which other events?