http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/tears-as-pair-deny-lee-rigby-murder

I think that we all expressed our thoughts on this subject at the time of the killing.

When the trial has been in progress for a few days, and evidence presented, then we could probably have another discussion. Until after the weekend, and until the trial proper starts, I see little point in rehashing our earlier thoughts and opinions.

How when there where 500 witnesses and it was filmed can they plead not guilty ? Unless the not guilty plee is I great a media circus and more publicity for the 2 ?

I think that we all expressed our thoughts on this subject at the time of the killing.

When the trial has been in progress for a few days, and evidence presented, then we could probably have another discussion. Until after the weekend, and until the trial proper starts, I see little point in rehashing our earlier thoughts and opinions.

And your views are respected but that doesn't stop others who wish to discuss it.

I think that we all expressed our thoughts on this subject at the time of the killing.

When the trial has been in progress for a few days, and evidence presented, then we could probably have another discussion. Until after the weekend, and until the trial proper starts, I see little point in rehashing our earlier thoughts and opinions.

And your views are respected but that doesn't stop others who wish to discuss it.

I am all in for a fair trial , but due to he nature of this case a no guilty plea should have been rejected , and with the death penalty , again not really in favour due to innocent people could be found guilty , but with this case it is 110% they are guilty and should be put down like the animals they are

However guilty a person is, he is still entitled to plead not guilty at his trial. You cannot waive the law for individual cases.

However guilty a person is appears to be, he is still entitled to plead not guilty at his trial. You cannot waive the law for individual cases.

No one is guilty in the UK until such is proven and a verdict brought in by a jury of his peers.

We are not French where it is often incumbent upon the innocent to prove so, often at great expense.

(Admittedly some choose to plead guilty in the UK, but everyone is rightfully given the opportunity to attest to their innocence at the start of every trial)

Thank you for the correction, HB, but I said IS and I meant IS.

But I won't split any more hairs! We are rightfully proud of the fact that any person accused of a crime under British law is deemed innocent until proved guilty.

Thank you for the correction, HB, but I said IS and I meant IS.

But I won't split any more hairs! We are rightfully proud of the fact that any person accused of a crime under British law is deemed innocent until proved guilty.

And how much do these false attestations to innocence cost the British tax payer? I believe there should be a point where CPS has proved their argument and the rest is then up to the defendant........... "An authenticated picture of the accused with a smoking gun over the dead body............."

However guilty a person is appears to be, he is still entitled to plead not guilty at his trial. You cannot waive the law for individual cases.

No one is guilty in the UK until such is proven and a verdict brought in by a jury of his peers.

Should be Universal and thereby stop such practices as psychics and mediums who prey on vulnerable people, homeopathy, Reiki, naturopathy and crystal healing but I'm sure you would object to that.

Thank you for the correction, HB, but I said IS and I meant IS.

But I won't split any more hairs! We are rightfully proud of the fact that any person accused of a crime under British law is deemed innocent until proved guilty.

And how much do these false attestations to innocence cost the British tax payer? I believe there should be a point where CPS has proved their argument and the rest is then up to the defendant........... "An authenticated picture of the accused with a smoking gun over the dead body............."

The primacy of the rule of law, and its impartial application, are the cornerstones of any truly functioning society...hence the issues with LOS!

The cost and inconvenience of having to try these scumbags is thus a small price to pay.

Of course they plead not guilty! What will be interesting is their justifications for doing so. I believe their beloved holy books will be quoted chapter and verse, yet the press will avoid discussing this wherever possible, whilst sociologists will try to put together an argument of insanity, for both of the accused as that would save us scrutinizing the elephant in the room, which would be far more uncomfortable to contemplate.

I believe their sentences will be higher if (i.e. when) found guilty than they would have been had they admitted it.

Although having said that they will probably get out in 15 years, when the very least that should happen is that they get locked in a dark room with no windows and have nothing but pork offal dropped through the a hole in the ceiling once a week.

I think that we all expressed our thoughts on this subject at the time of the killing.

When the trial has been in progress for a few days, and evidence presented, then we could probably have another discussion. Until after the weekend, and until the trial proper starts, I see little point in rehashing our earlier thoughts and opinions.

And your views are respected but that doesn't stop others who wish to discuss it.

I am all in for a fair trial , but due to he nature of this case a no guilty plea should have been rejected , and with the death penalty , again not really in favour due to innocent people could be found guilty , but with this case it is 110% they are guilty and should be put down like the animals they are

The contradiction in the post is palpable.

However guilty a person is, he is still entitled to plead not guilty at his trial. You cannot waive the law for individual cases.

Absolutely. You would be having a trial by jury just to see if he could plead not guilty, and so what would then be the point of a subsequent trial, just hang and be damned.

Thank you for the correction, HB, but I said IS and I meant IS.

But I won't split any more hairs! We are rightfully proud of the fact that any person accused of a crime under British law is deemed innocent until proved guilty.

And how much do these false attestations to innocence cost the British tax payer? I believe there should be a point where CPS has proved their argument and the rest is then up to the defendant........... "An authenticated picture of the accused with a smoking gun over the dead body............."

I shoot isanbirder, and

drop the gun on his body, rabc

walks in picks up the gun to provide first aid, and boater takes a photo of the smoking gun. Everybody else doesn't wait for forensics, or apply the rule of the current law. Mossfinn is hanged, if you are Irish you are guilty. Off you go Folium.

I believe their sentences will be higher if (i.e. when) found guilty than they would have been had they admitted it.

Although having said that they will probably get out in 15 years, when the very least that should happen is that they get locked in a dark room with no windows and have nothing but pork offal dropped through the a hole in the ceiling once a week.

I am not so sure, although a life sentence does not mean life, they may given a whole life tarriff, either way they will have to prove they are not a danger to the public before they are released. Good luck with that, when they have been proved guilty of course.

I shoot isanbirder

Could you not have chosen another member?

Yeah, you'll do

Innocent until guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt is actually very poor wording insofar that it is both incorrect and not how it even works. I've gone into this at length a number of time in this part of the forum using various examples but I have some time on my hands and shall do it again.

Let's keep it simple and say this character Mr Rigby is being charged with murder. A charge or claim is being made against him and jury of peers with have to decide if he is guilty or not guilty of the charge. Note the words and the meaning of those words... The jury is not being asked and does not have to decide if Mr Rigby is innocent as that would be another claim distinct from the charge / claim. If anyone does not understand the difference between guilty - not guilty and guilty - innocent then they should not be on a jury.

Not only is this method the cornerstone of law it is also the cornerstone of reason. It is something which every single child should be taught because without which there is NO method to discern what is correct or what is true. This 'method' is how we gain knowledge, how we learn is it not? However, sometimes we as individuals or as a collective, decide not to use this ONLY method we have which has been shown to work. Why?

Let Mr Rigby have his say and let his words stand on their own merit. I have no wish to live in a world where words are feared. I also have no desire to live in a world where people have the right not to be offended.

Thank you for the correction, HB, but I said IS and I meant IS.

But I won't split any more hairs! We are rightfully proud of the fact that any person accused of a crime under British law is deemed innocent until proved guilty.

And how much do these false attestations to innocence cost the British tax payer? I believe there should be a point where CPS has proved their argument and the rest is then up to the defendant........... "An authenticated picture of the accused with a smoking gun over the dead body............."

Mossfinn is hanged, if you are Irish you are guilty. Off you go Folium.

Hi Mossy, thanks for the invite.....

Your comments above sound like the opening line of a good dirge to be premiered at the next Ard Fheis. Who was the last Irishman hanged by the "dreaded" Brits? Casement perhaps?

I seem to recall that the Free State government officially executed some 77 fellow Irishmen (guilty or otherwise) during the Civil War (and that does not include the shed-load of extra-judicial killings that also occurred), while the Brits "only" managed to execute some 24 IRA "players" during the 1919-21 Chimurenga (to mix my metaphors so to speak).

Though of course the E.Tyrone Brigade allegedly experienced a handful of "executions" in more recent, troubled times, but what's the old saying..."live by the sword..."

Do you mean sir roger casement, who fought for the British army, in several campaigns in occupied Africa?

Innocent until guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt is actually very poor wording insofar that it is both incorrect and not how it even works. I've gone into this at length a number of time in this part of the forum using various examples but I have some time on my hands and shall do it again.

Let's keep it simple and say this character Mr Rigby is being charged with murder. A charge or claim is being made against him and jury of peers with have to decide if he is guilty or not guilty of the charge. Note the words and the meaning of those words... The jury is not being asked and does not have to decide if Mr Rigby is innocent as that would be another claim distinct from the charge / claim. If anyone does not understand the difference between guilty - not guilty and guilty - innocent then they should not be on a jury.

Not only is this method the cornerstone of law it is also the cornerstone of reason. It is something which every single child should be taught because without which there is NO method to discern what is correct or what is true. This 'method' is how we gain knowledge, how we learn is it not? However, sometimes we as individuals or as a collective, decide not to use this ONLY method we have which has been shown to work. Why?

Let Mr Rigby have his say and let his words stand on their own merit. I have no wish to live in a world where words are feared. I also have no desire to live in a world where people have the right not to be offended.

I think the use of Mr Rigby above as an example, is inappropriate, however the point guilty beyond reAsonable doubt, is the point in question.

I think the use of Mr Rigby above as an example, is inappropriate

Would YOU like someone else to subjectively decide if YOU should have access to reason? I would hope you would not.

One if us has got the point or reason of the last few posts wrong, maybe we should both revisit it and if it is me, I will change it.

One if us has got the point or reason of the last few posts wrong, maybe we should both revisit it and if it is me, I will change it.

Same law for all and same reason for all, regardless. Is Mr Rigby taking the piss? No question. Should his access to law and reason therefore be curtailed? No. Why? Law and reason is objective and not subjective. Sure.... one can have a subjective belief that 1+1=3 but that does not make it correct.

Mr Rigby is most certainly not taking the piss.

Mr Rigby is dead!

He is the victim in this case; something you seem to have forgotten.

Let Mr Rigby have his say and let his words stand on their own merit. I have no wish to live in a world where words are feared. I also have no desire to live in a world where people have the right not to be offended.

If he could have his say, this thread would not exist.

The UK government special report on the murder is out.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-uk-confronts-islamism/

What the report is clumsily getting at is the idea that Islam is legitimate in private practice, but not in public imposition. It’s Islam when a Muslim goes to a mosque or avoids alcohol, but Islamism when he harasses barflies or chops off heads under the dictates of Islamic law. Unfortunately this distinction has no meaning in Islam which was never rewired to function as a private religion in a secular state.

So good luck with that distinction, whilst the defendants quote religious texts chapter and verse where are those who refute their religious interpretation, as oppose to diversionary swipes at British foreign policy or right wing bogeymen?

Why link to, and quote from, an American far right organisation's commentary on the report rather than the report itself?

For those who want to read the report itself:

Tackling extremism in the UK