[article] Adventures of a Sinn Fein "Campiagn Team"

cdebru

Rock Climber wrote:

Your honour, the knife slipped,I was cutting a piece of tobacco whilst having a minor disagreement with Robert McCartney.
Furthermore your honour,I didn't get much schooling as I spent my youth throwing petrol bombs at the RUC so I dont know where the heart is, even if thats where the knife accidently stabbed him...
I plead manslaughter your honour I didnt mean to kill him sob sob..

Cop on cdebru, even Gerry adams this evening referred to the actions of these guys as murder.
You cant get much more pre-meditated than dragging a guy out of a pub, kicking the shít out of him,stabbing him and then leaving him to die without calling an ambulance and while the killers and their friends tell everyone in the pub to shut up whilst they get on with a forensic clean up job.

can you point to exactly where i said that the killing of robert mccartney was manslaughter
or where i said the killing of robert mccartney was not premeditated
or where i said that there was not an intent to kill robert mccartney

true

Funny how the provo sympathisers are engaged in a matter of damage limitation now. A month or so ago McGuinness, one of the top Sinn Fein boyos, refused to call Jean McColvilles abduction and murder a " crime", or to condemn it. Now he and Adams say the Short Strand murder was a crime. Is that because it was not officially sanctioned by the "infallible" provos ?

Rock Climber

cdebru wrote:

can you point to exactly where i said that the killing of robert mccartney was manslaughter
or where i said the killing of robert mccartney was not premeditated
or where i said that there was not an intent to kill robert mccartney

Its always what you dont say,it seems you have sinn féin speak when talking to me and mycroft here magically gliding over what we say as if we havent said it.
mycroft made it obvious to you that he was talking of the mcginley case in the context of what he feared was going to happen at any McCartney court case.

when rock climber jumped in suggesting i was trying to excuse the people who killed robert mccartney i was NOT

Well I'm glad that at last here you are being unequivocal about it, took relatively in thread terms almost as long to get that out of you as it did to get the current line in real time out of the Sinn Féin leadership on this.

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

pretty damn obvious it was raised in relation to the intimidation of juries and as an example of why a the SCC should exist there was no allegation of intimidation of witnesses

mycrofts question as to this is different from the mcartney case was in relation to allegations of intimidation not in relation to wether robert mccartneys was murdered or manslaughter

and again it is different from the mccartney case because it has been brought t court a man has been convicted of the killing of james mcginley

Uhm mycroft was talking about the need for a non jury court case because of intimidation and brought up the mcginley case as one where the family said there was undue intimidation and you are trying to say the discussion had no relation to the mccartney case...
Any reading of the last few pages of this thread shows the mccartney context and even mycroft is saying it himself after you've suggested otherwise, so you are disagreeing with the person you were discussing this with as to what the last part of this discussion is about...thats a crazy position to take in full public view if you want to be taken seriously.
Uhm I suggest you stop backtracking, the hole you are digging reaches to new zealand at this stage.

Cork

true wrote:

Funny how the provo sympathisers are engaged in a matter of damage limitation now. A month or so ago McGuinness, one of the top Sinn Fein boyos, refused to call Jean McColvilles abduction and murder a " crime", or to condemn it. Now he and Adams say the Short Strand murder was a crime.

Could we remind their supporters that membership of the IRA is also a crime.

Could we also remind these "people" that there is only one army in this country and it is not the criminal IRA.

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

2 you raised the issue of james mc ginley as an example of intimidation of a jury despite the fact that the guy was convicted of a offence that carries a sentence upto life imprisionment

1. A judge can not impose a sentence for life imprisonment in all man slaughter charges. Life imprisonment for manslaughter cannot be given for death by misadventure, so, y'know, STOP LYING.

3 there is no evidence that the jury was in anyway intimidated it is quoted as an allegation by the family in one newspaper and is not mentioned in any coverage of the trial or sentencing and was only made on the 1st of march the trial ended in december the aleegation is not supported in anything i can find by the police or trial judge

The trial judge and PSNI officers are not members of the community. The jury and family are. I would find it odd that a judge could identify a member of the IRA or even a bog standard member of the PSNI. Seeing as they can't do anything like a bog standard patrol of the area, because SF/IRA won't let them.

4 the arguement that 3 years for kniving someone i excepted as lenientand i think it is too short for taking someones life but the fact is the judge delivered the sentence not the alledgedly intimidated jury he could have imposed upto life imprisionment

No he/she couldn't; stop lying. Life sentences for manslaughter are not given out for death via misadventure. Quit shifting the blame.

5 the argument that you put forward that because the victim was stabbed in the heart it is more serious is nonsense unless you could prove that the heart was the deliberate target of the stabbing which given the outcome of the case the prosecution was unable to do

jesus. The point of the family is the prosecution could have made the case, but due to IRA intimidation the jury voted for manslaughter. So claiming prosecution incompedence is laughable. Partically after you've stated you don't know the facts of the case, or much about the law.

8 your last paragraph is just a rant i have not claimed bias shrill or unshrill your suggestion seems to be that anyone who is a republican has no right to question anything good bad or indifferent because the IRA have commited terrible acts in the name of justice becasue you are tired of it is just a rant

Your other points are y'know repeating yourself.

You've claimed the SCC isn't justice. You've been questioned about what alternatives there are that could work. You've not responded.

You've then been presented this case as evidence of another example of a family claiming the IRA is perverting the cause of justice, and you've leapt all over it shouting up and down over voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. You've conviently ignored why this case was thrown up which is to cite a family claiming that justice was perverted by the IRA jury intimidation.

You've yet to demostrate an alternative to the SCC, how it could work. And are using this as smoke and mirrors.

cdebru

Rock Climber wrote:

Its always what you dont say,it seems you have sinn féin speak when talking to me and mycroft here magically gliding over what we say as if we havent said it.
mycroft made it obvious to you that he was talking of the mcginley case in the context of what he feared was going to happen at any McCartney court case..

where did he make it obvious the previous 20 posts were all in relation to the SCC then mycroft raised this with the the quote about the jury being intimidated
seems very obvious to me that it was raised in relation to the non jury SCC

1 there is no evidence that the jury was intimidated
2 there is no evidence that a murder conviction should have been secured
3 the jury convicted the accused on a charge that carried a maximum life sentence that does not suggest they felt intimidated

Rock Climber wrote:

Well I'm glad that at last here you are being unequivocal about it, took relatively in thread terms almost as long to get that out of you as it did to get the current line in real time out of the Sinn Féin leadership on this.

if you can point to any post of mine on any thread where i have said that i dont believe that robert mccartney was murdered
where do you get off trying to suggest that it had to be got out of me


you jumped into a poost and tried to suggest i was trying to excuse or limit the murder of robert mccartney
can you now point out to me where you believe i said that it is obvious you read one of my posts jumped to the conclusion that i was talking about robert mccartney and started typing




you were wrong now face upto it

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

you were wrong now face upto it

Y'know saying it louder doesn't actually add weight to your argument

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

1. A judge can not impose a sentence for life imprisonment in all man slaughter charges. Life imprisonment for manslaughter cannot be given for death by misadventure, so, y'know, STOP LYING. .

he was stabbed it was voluntary manslaughter not death by misadventure

death by misadventure is an unintentional accident that leads to death without violating the law


http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/misadventure.htm

now will you retract the accusation that iam lying

mycroft wrote:

The trial judge and PSNI officers are not members of the community. The jury and family are. I would find it odd that a judge could identify a member of the IRA or even a bog standard member of the PSNI. Seeing as they can't do anything like a bog standard patrol of the area, because SF/IRA won't let them..

ok your allegation is that the jury would know these are IRA men how did they have signs the jury comes form all society no just areas that the IRA operate in

mycroft wrote:

No he/she couldn't; stop lying. Life sentences for manslaughter are not given out for death via misadventure. Quit shifting the blame. .

last time where does it say misadventure
it was manslaughter

mycroft wrote:

jesus. The point of the family is the prosecution could have made the case, but due to IRA intimidation the jury voted for manslaughter. So claiming prosecution incompedence is laughable. Partically after you've stated you don't know the facts of the case, or much about the law. .

the prosecution obviously did not make the case for murder
the jury was obviously not intimidated as

1 how would the jury know wether any one in the court was in the IRA
2 they convicted him of voluntary manslaughter maximum sentence life

mycroft wrote:

Your other points are y'know repeating yourself.

You've claimed the SCC isn't justice. You've been questioned about what alternatives there are that could work. You've not responded.

You've then been presented this case as evidence of another example of a family claiming the IRA is perverting the cause of justice, and you've leapt all over it shouting up and down over voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. You've conviently ignored why this case was thrown up which is to cite a family claiming that justice was perverted by the IRA jury intimidation.

You've yet to demostrate an alternative to the SCC, how it could work. And are using this as smoke and mirrors.

now lets hope your mate rock climber and earthman can read this
"family claiming that justice was perverted by the IRA JURY intimidation"

the simple fact is that there was no mention of intimidation of the jury in any reports
if the police or judge had felt that the presence of certain individuals in court was an attempt to intimidate the jury they could have barred them from the court
the jury system worked the man was convicted of a crime that carried a maximum life sentence

in my opinion considering the man was stabbed to death the sentence is lenient but that was the discretion of the judge not the jury



now again will you retract the accusation that i am lying

Rock Climber

cdebru wrote:

where did he make it obvious the previous 20 posts were all in relation to the SCC then mycroft raised this with the the quote about the jury being intimidated
seems very obvious to me that it was raised in relation to the non jury SCC

Have you conveniently for the purposes of back tracking forgotten that I commented after mycroft asked you how this was different to the McCartney case and after you went into detail as to how difficult it is to get a murder conviction...
In fact the very first post by mycroft giving the mcginley case mentions the comparison
It was only after my first post and not before that you answered his question then you accused my post of being an over reaction and a mis reading when clearly it is not, given that it got its purpose ie, you made your position clear on the McCartney murder after I posted.
Prior to that you were using a version of sinn Féin speak on the subject ie avoiding calling it for whatever reason best known to yourself.

I see you have to shout now in loud large print the hole you are digging is getting so big...

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

Y'know saying it louder doesn't actually add weight to your argument

no but the last paragraph of you previous post actually backs up my claim that we were discussing the mcginley case in relation to juries and the SCC not with reference to wether robert mccartney was murdered or if it was manslaughter

which is what i said

cdebru

Rock Climber wrote:

Have you conveniently for the purposes of back tracking forgotten that I commented after mycroft asked you how this was different to the McCartney case and after you went into detail as to how difficult it is to get a murder conviction...
In fact the very first post by mycroft giving the mcginley case mentions the comparison
It was only after my first post and not before that you answered his question then you accused my post of being an over reaction and a mis reading when clearly it is not, given that it got its purpose ie, you made your position clear on the McCartney murder after I posted.
Prior to that you were using a version of sinn Féin speak on the subject ie avoiding calling it for whatever reason best known to yourself.

I see you have to shout now in loud large print the hole you are digging is getting so big...

look this is what mycroft said

mycroft wrote:

You've then been presented this case as evidence of another example of a family claiming the IRA is perverting the cause of justice, and you've leapt all over it shouting up and down over voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. You've conviently ignored why this case was thrown up which is to cite a family claiming that justice was perverted by the IRA jury intimidation.

You've yet to demostrate an alternative to the SCC, how it could work. And are using this as smoke and mirrors....

now is that proof that it was in relation to the SCC

i have to shout because it is like beating you head of a wall trying to tell you guys what i was talking about

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

now will you retract the accusation that iam lying

No. Life sentence for manslaughter cannot be given in all trials

ok your allegation is that the jury would know these are IRA men how did they have signs the jury comes form all society no just areas that the IRA operate in

Thats what the family was saying. Back a few weeks ago all sorts of allegations were being flung around in the wake of the Mc Carthy family murder, I'm going to to see how far this will run.

the prosecution obviously did not make the case for murder
the jury was obviously not intimidated as

1 how would the jury know wether any one in the court was in the IRA
2 they convicted him of voluntary manslaughter maximum sentence

See now you're making assumptions. Once again it's interesting how someone who admits they don't have all the facts makes assumptions about whether or not the jury knew something.

the simple fact is that there was no mention of intimidation of the jury in any reports
if the police or judge had felt that the presence of certain individuals in court was an attempt to intimidate the jury they could have barred them from the court
the jury system worked the man was convicted of a crime that carried a maximum life sentence

in my opinion considering the man was stabbed to death the sentence is lenient but that was the discretion of the judge not the jury

See how is it that you can claim one thing that we shouldn't assume something about this case, while you're making an assumption.

The family are alleging this, I think in the light of current events, this allegetion has merit and importance and should be voiced.

I also find it hilarious that someone who constantly rails aganist Irish and British justice, and the injustice of said system, is satisfied that in this case justice has been done.

now again will you retract the accusation that i am lying

How about deliberately and willfully manipulating the truth?

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

ok your allegation is that the jury would know these are IRA men how did they have signs the jury comes form all society no just areas that the IRA operate in

the prosecution obviously did not make the case for murder
the jury was obviously not intimidated as

1 how would the jury know wether any one in the court was in the IRA
2 they convicted him of voluntary manslaughter maximum sentence life

the simple fact is that there was no mention of intimidation of the jury in any reports
if the police or judge had felt that the presence of certain individuals in court was an attempt to intimidate the jury they could have barred them from the court
the jury system worked the man was convicted of a crime that carried a maximum life sentence

in my opinion considering the man was stabbed to death the sentence is lenient but that was the discretion of the judge not the jury

heh, I find all this angst by you cdebru, somewhat unnecessary.
Remember that, its the family , thats claiming the intimidation.
Given that 70 witnesses are very slow to come foward in the McCartney case, do you think that *if* a jury's been intimidated, that they are going to shout it from the roof tops? They might now given how brave the mccartney sisters have been.
The comparison being made here is simple.
In both cases the families believe there was intimidation and in both cases(though something very brave is being done about it in the latter case and *cough* theres an election coming up) there seems to be a belief that this is affecting or has affected justice.

no but the last paragraph of you previous post actually backs up my claim that we were discussing the mcginley case in relation to juries and the SCC not with reference to wether robert mccartney was murdered or if it was manslaughter

which is what i said

Where would mycroft have backed you up there then?
I dont see it.
It's been pointed out to you that in the exact same post that mycroft first mentions the McGinley case, he also mentions the McCartney case.
Wait I'll go back and get the paragraph that you say he backs you up on...

You've then been presented this case as evidence of another example of a family claiming the IRA is perverting the cause of justice, and you've leapt all over it shouting up and down over voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. You've conviently ignored why this case was thrown up which is to cite a family claiming that justice was perverted by the IRA jury intimidation.

You've yet to demostrate an alternative to the SCC, how it could work. And are using this as smoke and mirrors.

See?
Yet again you are digging a hole for yourself by presenting something that clearly isnt in there...

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

No. Life sentence for manslaughter cannot be given in all trials




Thats what the family was saying. Back a few weeks ago all sorts of allegations were being flung around in the wake of the Mc Carthy family murder, I'm going to to see how far this will run.





See now you're making assumptions. Once again it's interesting how someone who admits they don't have all the facts makes assumptions about whether or not the jury knew something.





See how is it that you can claim one thing that we shouldn't assume something about this case, while you're making an assumption.

The family are alleging this, I think in the light of current events, this allegetion has merit and importance and should be voiced.

I also find it hilarious that someone who constantly rails aganist Irish and British justice, and the injustice of said system, is satisfied that in this case justice has been done.



How about deliberately and willfully manipulating the truth?

look the simple fact is you obviously have no idea what your talking about
i pointed out that the guy was convicted of manslaughter of which there are two main types
voluntary and involuntary

this is an obvious case of voluntary manslaughter and as such carries a maximum life term the judge in his sentencing decided that 3 years was the sentence
i don't know the full facts of the case and neither do you the judge heard all the evidence for some reason he decided 3 years was the sentence

then you accuse me of lying and prattle on about death by misadventure which i had to point out to you was not a crime

can you please explain to me how a jury in belfast which would be drawn from all sections of the community would recognise IRA men from Derry
did the IRA men have signs


secondly if the jury felt intimidated why would they convict him of manslaughter which carried a maximum life sentence surely they would have found him not guilty if they were tampered with or intimidated why convict him of a crime that could have sent him to prison for life

the family have appealed the leniency of the sentence which is quite understandable as 3 years seems lenient to me
how sinn fein or the IRA can be responsible for the sentence or the verdict is beyond me
I am not satisfied that justice has been done I just dont see any evidence that the jury was intimidated

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

heh, I find all this angst by you cdebru, somewhat unnecessary.
Remember that, its the family , thats claiming the intimidation.
Given that 70 witnesses are very slow to come foward in the McCartney case, do you think that *if* a jury's been intimidated, that they are going to shout it from the roof tops? They might now given how brave the mccartney sisters have been.
The comparison being made here is simple.
In both cases the families believe there was intimidation and in both cases(though something very brave is being done about it in the latter case and *cough* theres an election coming up) there seems to be a belief that this is affecting or has affected justice.


Where would mycroft have backed you up there then?
I dont see it.
It's been pointed out to you that in the exact same post that mycroft first mentions the McGinley case, he also mentions the McCartney case.
Wait I'll go back and get the paragraph that you say he backs you up on...

See?
Yet again you are digging a hole for yourself by presenting something that clearly isnt in there...

ok explain to me why a jury that had been intimidated would find the man guilty of a charge that carried life imprisonment as the maximum sentence

it stands logic on its head to suggest that if a jury was interefered with they would convict the man on a charge of manslaughter

the families allegation was that the presence of IRA men in the court was the intimidation
1 how did the jury know that these men in the court were from the IRA
2 if they did know and felt intimidated why did they convict him of an offence that carried a possible life sentence


mycroft clearly stated that he raised this case in relation to the discussion on jury intimidation not witness intimidation they are 2 very different things
and it was in relation to the discussion on the protection of juries and the need for the SCC
not in relation to wether the killers of robert mccartney could argue manslaughter that was never discussed untill rock climber wrongly raised it

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

No. Life sentence for manslaughter cannot be given in all trials

actually your wrong as the law stands in the uk anyone convicted of manslaughter faces a possible life in prison term

proposals to change the law in relation to involuntary manslaughter were issued in 2000 but as of yet the law has not changed

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/invmans.html

there is no proposal to change the law in relation to voluntary manslaughter

"Manslaughter is the unlawful, but unintended killing of a person. It can be voluntary, like when someone is killed unlawfully under circumstances that don't include a premeditated intent to kill. An example of this would be someone losing their life during a fight. In fact voluntary manslaughter is where a person is killed by someone else in rage, terror or desperation."

from here

http://members.lycos.co.uk/brisray/misc/mmurder.htm



now this is seems to be a clear case of voluntary manslaughter and would be unaffected by any proposed change

so will you agree i was not lying

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

ok explain to me why a jury that had been intimidated would find the man guilty of a charge that carried life imprisonment as the maximum sentence

Well perhaps, there was a jury vote and a requisite number on the jury were suffeciently intimidated to vote a certain way.
They wouldnt have told the others.
I'm only pointing out possibilities that *are* possible-you and I dont know...
We know nothing much of the case other than what the family say, the family are crying fowl and talking of intimidation.
One thing I do know, is that you are continously misrepresenting what mycroft is saying about why he brought up this other case and you are ploughing a lone furrow in doing so.

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

Well perhaps, there was a jury vote and a requisite number on the jury were suffeciently intimidated to vote a certain way.
They wouldnt have told the others.
I'm only pointing out possibilities that *are* possible-you and I dont know...
We know nothing much of the case other than what the family say, the family are crying fowl and talking of intimidation.
One thing I do know, is that you are continously misrepresenting what mycroft is saying about why he brought up this other case and you are ploughing a lone furrow in doing so

it is not possible that someone intimidated would still find him guilty of a crime for which he could have been sent to prison for life how could that possibly make the alledged intimidators happy

this is what mycroft said
"You've conviently ignored why this case was thrown up which is to cite a family claiming that justice was perverted by the IRA jury intimidation"

see the important word is JURY there is no jury in the mccartney case
therefore it is not a comparison with the mccartney case
the jury intimidation allegation is in relation to the need for the SCC not the mccartney case

but you read whatever you want into it

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

it stands logic on its head to suggest that if a jury was interefered with they would convict the man on a charge of manslaughter

But as someone, oh it was you, said you don't know the facts. This cause was brought up to highlight allegations of IRA jury intimidation, and perversion of justice. The family feel so strongly about it they're appealing the conviction

the families allegation was that the presence of IRA men in the court was the intimidation
1 how did the jury know that these men in the court were from the IRA
2 if they did know and felt intimidated why did they convict him of an offence that carried a possible life sentence

Once again for the hard of thinking, he pleaded guilt to manslaughter
christ. The jury were asked to consider whether it was murder or manslaughter.

Secondly. according to reports 50 republicans demostrated outside the court, and riot police where called. If I was a juror walking into court, I'd feel bloody intimidated.

mycroft clearly stated that he raised this case in relation to the discussion on jury intimidation not witness intimidation they are 2 very different things
and it was in relation to the discussion on the protection of juries and the need for the SCC
not in relation to wether the killers of robert mccartney could argue manslaughter that was never discussed untill rock climber wrongly raised it

Okay for those of us joining us late in the game;

This thread started with

Republicans mocking the justice of the SCC

People weighed in saying that the SCC was an unfortunate necessisty because of IRA jury intimidation and williness to pervert the course of justice.

Republicans then jump up and down and say ah but SCC is now going after criminals, its a kangroo court.

We go, true and if the IRA disbanded a major reason for the SCC existance could be abolished.

Cdrebu and Monument then start wittering about alternatives.

Myself and Sand say, really how would that work then.

Monument wanders into philosophy about greater evils and lesser evils, but when pinned down on the realities he disappears.

Cdebru can't answer, and when an article appears where a family alledge jury intimidation, he leaps up and down, talks about manslaughter, knifes in heart,

In fact we're treated to the surreal sight of a republican defending the british justice system. A boards first I think.

Cdebru, you can try and argue the facts of this case. It'll take a while the family are appealing.

This case was used as a current example of a family claiming IRA intimidation of witnesses, and jurys.

So just to drag this thread back on topic, Cdebru now you've had some time, what alternative to the SCC do you suggest?

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

this is what mycroft said
"You've conviently ignored why this case was thrown up which is to cite a family claiming that justice was perverted by the IRA jury intimidation"

see the important word is JURY there is no jury in the mccartney case
therefore it is not a comparison with the mccartney case
the jury intimidation allegation is in relation to the need for the SCC not the mccartney case

but you read whatever you want into it

You denied that it was being compared to the mcCartney case at all
I even highlighted the jury part of what he said in a paragraph that you were using to say you are right here.

*cough* Here is where you are denying that the McCartney case is being discussed...

cdebru wrote:

we were discussing the case from derry were a man was sentenced to 3 years for manslaughter
not the robert mccartney case

yet what mycroft said when he brought up the McGinley case was...

mycroft wrote:

Spare us the IRA wouldn't do it, in a new twist to the Mc Carthy murders; another brave family has come forward



from here

Fairly cut and shut that-both families are now together in a stand against what they believe to be intimidation.

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

But as someone, oh it was you, said you don't know the facts. This cause was brought up to highlight allegations of IRA jury intimidation, and perversion of justice. The family feel so strongly about it they're appealing the conviction?

again you reveal your ignorance
they cannot appeal the conviction they are appealing the leniency of the sentence

mycroft wrote:

Once again for the hard of thinking, he pleaded guilt to manslaughter
christ. The jury were asked to consider whether it was murder or manslaughter.?

if they were intimidating the jury why would he plead guilty to manslaughter
they could have intimidated the jury into a not guilty

mycroft wrote:

Secondly. according to reports 50 republicans demostrated outside the court, and riot police where called. If I was a juror walking into court, I'd feel bloody intimidated. ?

can you provide a link to that i cant find ti anywhere

mycroft wrote:

Okay for those of us joining us late in the game;

This thread started with

Republicans mocking the justice of the SCC

People weighed in saying that the SCC was an unfortunate necessisty because of IRA jury intimidation and williness to pervert the course of justice.

Republicans then jump up and down and say ah but SCC is now going after criminals, its a kangroo court.

We go, true and if the IRA disbanded a major reason for the SCC existance could be abolished.

Cdrebu and Monument then start wittering about alternatives.

Myself and Sand say, really how would that work then.

Monument wanders into philosophy about greater evils and lesser evils, but when pinned down on the realities he disappears.

Cdebru can't answer, and when an article appears where a family alledge jury intimidation, he leaps up and down, talks about manslaughter, knifes in heart,

In fact we're treated to the surreal sight of a republican defending the british justice system. A boards first I think.

Cdebru, you can try and argue the facts of this case. It'll take a while the family are appealing.

This case was used as a current example of a family claiming IRA intimidation of witnesses, and jurys.

So just to drag this thread back on topic, Cdebru now you've had some time, what alternative to the SCC do you suggest?

thank you for confirming that you raised this case in the context of the SCC

i have not jumped up and down nor have i defende the british justice system i merely asked how sinn fein or the IRA can be responsible for the decision of the judge
i have told you that there is no evidence that the jury was in anyway intimidated
therefore it is not an excuse for the SCC



my alternative to the SCC is the existing jury court system we already have I would have tought that was obvious


now that i have nailed down the life imprisonment for manslaughter will you apologise for accusing me of lying
and stop trying to avoid the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

You denied that it was being compared to the mcCartney case at all
I even highlighted the jury part of what he said in a paragraph that you were using to say you are right here.

*cough* Here is where you are denying that the McCartney case is being discussed...
yet what mycroft said when he brought up the McGinley case was...

Fairly cut and shut that-both families are now together in a stand against what they believe to be intimidation.

i refer you to mycrofts last post
it clearly state that the mcginley case was raised in the context of the SCC

bonkey

Last chance to return to civility....on both sides.

A deep breath, a few calm breaths wouldn't go astray either. Maybe we could even remember what was being dsicussed before this sidetrack?

And mycroft...I shouldn't have to point out the guidelines regarding lying. Can you show beyond reasonable doubt that its a deliberate attempt to deceive, rather than someone simply believing something other than you, and believing that their understanding is correct? Whether or not they are correct is not the issue.

jc

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

again you reveal your ignorance
they cannot appeal the conviction they are appealing the leniency of the sentence

Poor turn of phrase

if they were intimidating the jury why would he plead guilty to manslaughter
they could have intimidated the jury into a not guilty

Thats a suposition. You don't know the facts for example, his finger prints could be on the knife and he was caught bang to rights, he decided that there was no way he could get off, a judge can direct a jury to reach a guilt or innocent verdict.

can you provide a link to that i cant find ti anywhere

Read it in todays observer it's not up yet.

thank you for confirming that you raised this case in the context of the SCC

i have not jumped up and down nor have i defende the british justice system i merely asked how sinn fein or the IRA can be responsible for the decision of the judge
i have told you that there is no evidence that the jury was in anyway intimidated
therefore it is not an excuse for the SCC

The family state the verdict is the evidence, and therefore appealing.

my alternative to the SCC is the existing jury court system we already have I would have tought that was obvious

This is not an isolated incident, the IRA have intimidate jurys and obstructed justice, how would you protect jurys?

now that i have nailed down the life imprisonment for manslaughter will you apologise for accusing me of lying
and stop trying to avoid the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about

I've not had a chance to peruse your links fully, but given your sketchy understanding of the law, I'm more than a lil dubious of the claim

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

Poor turn of phrase




Thats a suposition. You don't know the facts for example, his finger prints could be on the knife and he was caught bang to rights, he decided that there was no way he could get off, a judge can direct a jury to reach a guilt or innocent verdict.





Read it in todays observer it's not up yet.




The family state the verdict is the evidence, and therefore appealing.



This is not an isolated incident, the IRA have intimidate jurys and obstructed justice, how would you protect jurys?



I've not had a chance to peruse your links fully, but given your sketchy understanding of the law, I'm more than a lil dubious of the claim

lol

you accuse me of having a sketchy understanding of the law

1 you dont know what death by misadventure is
2 you dont know what manslaughter is
3 you dont know that it carries a maximum life sentence in all cases in the uk
4 you dont know that the family can only appeal the sentence not the conviction

i tell you what read the links i gave you and then you can come back with your apology

or read bonkeys post

mycroft

now that i have nailed down the life imprisonment for manslaughter will you apologise for accusing me of lying
and stop trying to avoid the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about

Neither of those links prove the charge can be life imprisonment.

The reforming the law link refers to potential changes to the law, to change the sentence to life, which suggests to me it's not at the moment.

The other link states the definition of manslaughter.

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

Neither of those links prove the charge can be life imprisonment.

The reforming the law link refers to potential changes to the law, to change the sentence to life, which suggests to me it's not at the moment.

The other link states the definition of manslaughter.

ok here is the quote for the hard of reading

"The Law Commission recommended that the offence of reckless killing, where the offender is aware that an action involves a risk of causing death and it was unreasonable for him to take that action having regard to the circumstances as he knew or believed them to be, should attract the same maximum penalty as at present i.e. life imprisonment. The Government accepts this recommendation."

can you see it there the same maximum penalty as at present ie life imprisonment


here is another link to a seperate case lase line is the important bit
http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/s/142/142488_new_hope_of_justice_for_frank.html

and another one
http://www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/adviceandsupport/prison_life/lifesentencedprisoners/

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

ok here is the quote for the hard of reading

"The Law Commission recommended that the offence of reckless killing, where the offender is aware that an action involves a risk of causing death and it was unreasonable for him to take that action having regard to the circumstances as he knew or believed them to be, should attract the same maximum penalty as at present i.e. life imprisonment. The Government accepts this recommendation."

can you see it there the same maximum penalty as at present ie life imprisonment


here is another link to a seperate case lase line is the important bit
http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/s/142/142488_new_hope_of_justice_for_frank.html

and another one
http://www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/adviceandsupport/prison_life/lifesentencedprisoners/

Recommendations. NOT. LAW. AT. PRESENT.

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

i refer you to mycrofts last post
it clearly state that the mcginley case was raised in the context of the SCC

And I answered that...
I mean do you seriously expect anyone not to read a discussion about the SCC's benefit in trying cases to avoid intimidation of both witnesses and juries to be divorced from an obvious comparison of intimidation cases introduced during the discussion?
you denied the comparison yet it was clearly being made-perhaps you initially didnt see what I was see-ing,I'm prepared to accept that.

If mycroft is happy to agree with your version of events then I am but with the caveat that all of this is being clarified too pages after the initial comments and for the life of me, no matter how many times I read this, I wouldnt blame Rockclimber for coming to the conclusion that he seems to have based on what was being said a few pages back and not now.