Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@terry wrote:
@sceptical guy wrote:
The Mail and the Telegraph – pah!
I hadn’t see these reports because I don’t get those rags.
It may have been in The Sun too if that helps.
I wouldn’t line my cat’s litter tray with any of those papers! :P
Is this a race thing or a religion thing?
Read on the BBC website the judge said the men had no respect for the girls because they weren’t part of the men’s community or religion. So if the girls had been part of the same community and religion the men would have respected them and not raped them?
What religion are these men? Anyone know?
Never been in a bookies. Never placed a bet. Waste of money. I prefer to spend mine on fags and booze. :P
Anyhow, expect nothing of the day and you won’t be disappointed.
South Eastern trains
The “sorry your train was late” announcer @ Cannon Street and his random excuse generator.
@jen_jen wrote:
I thought it had been determined that the giant panda is a true bear.
I just googled, “am I a bear?” and got this: http://www.google.co.uk/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1TEUA_ENUK483&=&q=am+I+a+bear&oq=am+I+a+bear&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=igoogle.3…440.3945.0.5102.11.10.0.1.1.0.140.1132.1j9.10.0…0.0.
So I don’t know. :?
I think the WWF should have the decency to officially inform me either way.
@rubyred wrote:
@terry wrote:
@panda12 wrote:
@terry wrote:
@panda12 wrote:
I abhor all forms of cruelty to all animals and actively do something about it.
How about lambs being slaughtered at an abottoir?
Dunno about you but I’m a vegetarian and have been for 26 years so I think that answers your question.
No it doesn’t.
Isn’t it cruel that lambs (ickle baby sheep) are murdered by having their throats slit?
And what are you actively doing to protest about it?
I would assume that abstaining from eating and buying the object would be rebellion enough, supply and demand and all that ? !
True Roobes. There is also campaigning for changes in the law in terms of animal welfare.
@terry wrote:
@panda12 wrote:
@terry wrote:
@panda12 wrote:
@terry wrote:
@panda12 wrote:
I abhor all forms of cruelty to all animals and actively do something about it.
How about lambs being slaughtered at an abottoir?
Dunno about you but I’m a vegetarian and have been for 26 years so I think that answers your question.
No it doesn’t.
Isn’t it cruel that lambs (ickle baby sheep) are murdered by having their throats slit?
And what are you actively doing to protest about it?
Yes it is cruel. What do I actively do? Lots of protest work which in the interests of my privacy I will not divulge on here.
Surely, promoting and publicising the kind of protests you’re involved with would gain you a wider audience. Isn’t that what it’s about..?
I can do that quite well without using this place as a springboard.
@a certain sadness wrote:
Im glad to hear it, i always thought under that hard exterior was a soft teddy bear :wink:
Hmmm. I’m not a teddy bear. In fact, there is some debate as to whether I am in fact a bear at all.
I’ll leave you hoomans to decide. :D
@terry wrote:
@kent f OBE wrote:
A 15 yr old girl reported the gang in 2008 but the Crown Prosection took no action. Investigations only began in 2010.
Reports in the newspapers are saying the police were “petrified” of being branded as racists.
My message to the police and the CPS involved in this case is simple: resign.May I ask which newspapers? I don’t buy them.
From CPS Code for Prosecuting Rape Cases:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/rapepolicy.html
There are 2 tests which must be satisfied before a decision is taken to prosecute.
The first is the evidential test to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.
A realistic prospect of conviction means that a jury, properly directed in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged.
When deciding whether there is sufficient evidence, the prosecutor must consider whether the evidence can be used and is reliable.
The second test is the public interest test. However if the case does not pass the first test, the evidential test, it must not go ahead, no matter how serious or important it may be.
Remember, the onus is on the Prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendents are guilty.
I’m not defending what this gang did in any way, but perhaps there wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute back in 2008?
