The Daily Mail

[????]

MrBen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Moos, Quidsy, Huge, *Bob*, Mockers, Snorky and er

> Taper all giving it good.

>

> I've not felt quite like this since Pink Floyd

> reformed for Live 8. Grown men wept.

And newbies like Strafer acting with the confidence of an old veteran.... A kind of John Bonham's son at the Led Zep reunion

:-S

[StraferJack]

would you listen to this ???? guy???

http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/070523/ari_l.jpg

[Ted Max]

Strafer hasn't gone through the "I'm a new poster being bullied by the board" phase yet has he?

Just as well he hasn't read the 8,23423,23423,2342 PMs I've received about him.

[Loz]

Since Strafer came in all guns blazing* I'd always assumed he was an old hack under a new name.

(*see what I did there?)

[Ted Max]

That's an easy assumption for you to make, Mr Lawrence.

[StraferJack]

ba dum tsh

(to both)

[maxxi]

Does no one else feel that - much as I want the murderers caught and punished - this is about justifying the scrapping of an invaluable 800year old rule and that this example will be trotted out in future every time a citizen's rights are crushed and he/she is constantly re-arrested/tried for the same crime as part of the state's ongoing harassment of individuals it disagrees with?

Or that the police will get sloppier and lazier knowing that if they miss something they can catch it next time around?

Or that a great many more people are likely to suffer than benefit as cases like the Lawrence case are rare.

I hope they are convicted but I feel this is Cameron trying for his 'Osama' moment and will only serve to kill the idea of a future govt. resurrecting Double Jeopardy.

[mockney piers]

You do realise that this was done years ago? (if we're talking double jeopardy, and not the really bad film with Ashley wassername, though she's a right NBO)

I can't see aroblem with retrial if there's new evidence, we now live in a world of DNA, which it would be wrong to say there's a medieval precedent that says you can't be done for a Crome despite new evidence showing you unquestionably did it.

Pragmatism, as long as it's used pragmatically.

[maxxi]

I do realise that and that it was largely due to pressure over this case but how many new trials for how many new pieces of evidence? As for 'evidence showing you unquestionably did it' surely that won't be decided until the retrial? And did the original prosecution not believe they had similarly strong evidence? If they didn't why did they go to trial at all?

If this evidence falls apart in court will these men continue to be brought to court until they are convicted because we all believe they are guilty? That's a dodgy road to travel. If new evidence (which may prove to be wrong/inaccurate/fabricated) was brought against the surviving members of the Guildford Four or Birmingham Six should they be arrested and retried too because someone thinks the evidence is strong enough?

What's pragmatic about that?

[mockney piers]

Straw man.

In fairness it's liticians who dance to the tabloids' tune, not (occasionally frustratingly) the judiciary.

[Annette Curtain]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> would be wrong to say there's a medieval precedent

> that says you can't be done for a Crome despite

> new evidence showing you unquestionably did it.

http://inspectorclouseau.com/images/clouseau.gif"done for a Crome"

mockney, the new Inspector Clouseau ?

[mockney piers]

:-$