- This topic has 84 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Thanks for that, Richard – that makes sense.
IIRC there was a time when the police always made the decision on whether or not to charge on everything, but so many cases came to court without sufficient evidence and the conviction rate was so low that the CPS was created so specialist criminal lawyers could make the decision, thus achieving a higher percentage of credible cases (hence convictions) going to court with the net result less taxpayer money was wasted.
Tougher Saturday morning subject than the Ayr Gold Cup – I’ll deserve my rare breakfast after this!
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"“But the alternative is surely far more sinister – the State unilaterally dispensing ‘justice.'”
Agree. It is a very important safeguard. A jury of 12 randomly chosen people just before a trial commences is genuinely independent.
No one is saying it is perfect. Miscarriages of justice have happened. But they have happened in judge only trials as well.
Another positive feature of the jury system is it includes citizens in the administration of justice. It is an important civic duty – the highest any citizen can perform in peacetime. I think that is good for people, rather than being passive in an all powerful state.
I think we would soon realise our mistake if it was abolished. A case of what I call the Joni Mitchell’s Principle: “You don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone”.
AArrgh, I thought Tinto had it but just got nabbed by the fav in the
last strides. Hats off to Hollie Doyle, she ran the perfect race on
Wobwobwob and 40/1 E/W a place more than covers me and gets me a few
points in Nathan’s competition
Where to start.
Firstly why was brand allowed to get away with his behaviour because he was the talent. Many comedians,including male ones,say its been known for years what he was like. A few challenged him,including Katherine Ryan but he carried on as before.
When are the folk who turned a blind eye or who put women at risk going to face justice. No point in brand going down and this carrying on through others which is being alleged.
As for trial by media. What chance did one womens word against brand have a chance of getting a conviction. He’s a weasel and would charm the jury. Not in favour of trial by media but as his lawyers had already threatened one of the women I can see why they went to the papers.
As for it being a conspiracy just sue the times and channel 4. He’s got the wealth to do it. Too many stories now I’m afraid. He’s a horrible human being and I’ve no sympathy for him. I’m am troubled though why he is the only one truly investigated.
Finally as regards brand knowing too much. He parrots conspiracy theories available in plenty other places so gees a break russell.
More troubling from him in loads of big usa companies pulling ads from rumble due to his press. I’m sure it will be yesterday’s news soon but hopefully it isn’t the last scumbag taken to task.“But the alternative is surely far more sinister – the State unilaterally dispensing ‘justice.’”
My last word, Ipromise. I can only speak from my experiences but I don’t see
the judiciary as necessarily as part of the state as such, in fact nor do they.
It’s the judiciary who more times than not hold the Government to account and have
found many of their would be laws or rules unlawful to the Government’s great
displeasure. They overturn cases where where wrongdoing is brought to light, including
when one of their own has misdirected a jury.I’m not saying they are perfect, but I’d rather put my liberty in the hands of them
rather than 12 unknown individuals with their own unknown biases and preconceived
notions and prejudices. I accept, you might just get 12 decent people who grasp what
is going on and are prepared to take the time to go through the evidence to come to
a sound conclusion but that’s far too randon for me.Okay, that’s me done, I rest my case. I do however respect the opposing views.
Well done Cork for putting a bit of well needed bite into the lounge.
Thanks for your input BigG, any views always welcome.
Hancock didn’t go unnoticed by the way Cork, good effort finding something to fit this discussion.
That was a Hancock Classic – one of many.
Many thanks to CAS for reminding me of it.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"It is one of the best lines in all British comedy, maybe the very best.
Some of Hancock’s speech leading up to it is brilliant as well:
“Take the case of Doubting Thomas, who was sent to Coventry for looking through a keyhole at Lady Godiva.
Can anybody prove he was looking at her? Can anybody prove it was he who shouted out: ‘Get your hair cut’?”
A very troubled soul was Mr Hancock , however in terms of talent he was in a different universe to Brand , find it telling Billy Connolly took him to task regarding his behaviour , I’ve dealt with many celebrities with my job and some have this believe that they can expect/say/do whatever they wish , one of two I’ve had to politely correct in my 25 years , I wish they were all like Michael Palin
I’ll leave this here as well , from the man desperately trying to put himself forward as a crusader of truth and justice …. A leopard can’t ….
“A very troubled soul was Mr Hancock”
My father introduced me to the work of Hancock in the 70s, I loved it and was shocked and saddened to learn he had committed suicide in 1968.
What a waste of not only a life but an incredible talent.
The bottom line is, I think, he just took life, his work and himself that bit too seriously, instead of enjoying it.
But that said, his comedy genius was probably rooted in his manic perfectionism.
My Dad told me in his latter years Hancock got a job hosting a weekly variety broadcast on ITV he evidently considered beneath him.
“Join us next week, when we will once again plumb the depths of mediocrity,” he said at the end of what proved his final appearance.
That searing home truth was too much for the ITV producers to feel able to let pass.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"This from Hancock’s Wikipedia entry –
Asked by Van Morrison about his relationship with Hancock, Spike Milligan commented in 1989: “Very difficult man to get on with. He used to drink excessively. You felt sorry for him. He ended up on his own. I thought, he’s got rid of everybody else, he’s going to get rid of himself and he did.”
Hancock was the beneficiary of two great script writers in Ray Galton and Alan Simpson. I doubt he would have been anywhere near as successful without them and his career went into decline after he split with them.
BBC4 has shown a few episodes recently. I think Sid James, with all his film experience, was a far more accomplished performer. But Hancock turned against him eventually, just as he had done with Kenneth Williams earlier.
He was capable of great performances (like in the court room episode) but he seemed to be very insecure and difficult.
In his diary, Kenneth Williams wrote Hancock was “an indifferent performer saved by two of the most brilliant scriptwriters of the decade, whom he rejected. Thereafter, it was all downhill…The sort of rough ability he did have was sufficient for a duo of the Morecambe and Wise type of act but not for the more advanced kind of comedy which he really admired (Benny, Tati etc).”
A touch harsh, perhaps. Williams was bitter with Hancock for pushing him out of the show. But I do think there is a grain of truth in his assessment and Hancock’s unsuccessful film career does lend weight to Williams’s argument.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.