Body Found

[localyokel]

 

 

 

 

 

Does it matter? Just listen to yourselves tj blah blah blah, It's school ground bullying junk. You don't have read his posts.

I believe it is necessary to reply to his rambling idiocy if only to protect some tiny element of integrity for these forums. The kind of rubbish he produces is exactly what local politicians are able to point to as examples of 'ill-informed' ignorance and to ignore the genuine points made by some of the more intelligent, knowledgeable and insightful posters¹ who frequently expose their blundering spendthrift, self-serving actions.

There was a time when intelligent debate was enabled on these forums and I'm extremely disappointed to find an experienced poster such as yourself seeking to protect those whose actions would damage them, Ms bees.

 

¹I do not make any personal claim to be 'intelligent, knowledgeable or insightful.'

Lonan, this forum is hardly Wikileaks or Occupy Wall Street. You take yourself too seriously. This forum for the most part is just an anti-government propaganda mill. Badmouthing the government seems to be a hobby for some people yet when push comes to shove they express hostility to anyone who genuinely speaks up against corruption and inequality. Again, lighten up - it's not as if anyone but a small number bother to read the forums anyway.

So says the person who seems to bad mouth the civil service more than most. That post certainly adds weight to the suggestion that you are a government shill (or shills, or shill dept) with a very clear agenda.

 

Its actually quite clever what you do on here with your random ramblings, diversionary tactics, and general infuriating obtuseness to constantly derail any serious debate before it gets into uncomfortable territory IOMG wise in exposing or discussing anything potentially serious.

Edited December 9, 2013 by localyokel

[censorship]

This forum for the most part is just an anti-everything propaganda mill.

Fixed

[tameelf]

yer lighten up stop gang stalking a poster. this thread went tits up ages ago tj is keeping it going btw has jw named the boy racers yet

[John Wright]

He's in Bulgaria and not been reading this. He got clamped this morning in Blagoevgrad for not paying his parking fee in a car park that was free up until October. Been bankrupted by the release fee... 10 leva Bgn = £4.20. There's no sign to say its pay and display now. And no old man selling the tickets and guarding the cars. I thought it was a scam, the Denver boot was very down at heel. But the release guy turned up, in 4 minutes, in an official municipal parking department van, and thanked me in English

[2bees]

Lol only in Bulgaria

[Kopek]

Setting up work permits????

[John Wright]

shhh kopek. well its more likely than me skiing

[reptar]

So, he's been found guilty at the retrial. I've just got one question. Why did his wife not give evidence? I don't think she did last time either, surely her evidence would be crucial as the only other person present at the time the offence occurred. I'm genuinely interested.

[John Wright]

4 minutes ago, reptar said:

So, he's been found guilty at the retrial. I've just got one question. Why did his wife not give evidence? I don't think she did last time either, surely her evidence would be crucial as the only other person present at the time the offence occurred. I'm genuinely interested.

It used to be that a spouse was neither competent, nor compel able to give evidence for or against the other spouse. That means they couldn’t and couldn’t be forced to give evidence.

The rule is changed. Spouses are competent to give evidence against each other, unless jointly charged, but cannot be compelled by the prosecution, although they can be compelled by the defence.

[reptar]

2 minutes ago, John Wright said:

It used to be that a spouse was neither competent, nor compel able to give evidence for or against the other spouse. That means they couldn’t and couldn’t be forced to give evidence.

The rule is changed. Spouses are competent to give evidence against each other, unless jointly charged, but cannot be compelled by the prosecution, although they can be compelled by the defence.

Thanks John, not just a prompt, comprehensive response but a qualified one as well.😀

Very interesting, perhaps there are things to be inferred from the fact that she did not provide evidence. Or perhaps not, who knows.

[John Wright]

11 minutes ago, reptar said:

Thanks John, not just a prompt, comprehensive response but a qualified one as well.😀

Very interesting, perhaps there are things to be inferred from the fact that she did not provide evidence. Or perhaps not, who knows.

First rule of advocacy never call and ask questions of a witness unless you know what their evidence will be in reply.

Generally, and definitely not referring to this case, I wouldn’t want to call a spouse to defend a client charged with murdering the spouses lover - without very careful thought.

I have a vague recollection, and May be very wrong, as the appeal reports temporarily disappeared for the duration of  current trial, that the wife was wrongly compelled to give evidence at the first trial. Certainly the question arose.

[Shake me up Judy]

That's always been a huge historical anomaly in the justice system and I'd be interested in your take on it John. As most murders/manslaughters take place in a domestic setting, a spouse would be the only witness in many cases. How many prosecutions fail because there is no 'independent' third party witness ? When was this rule brought in, and is it the same in all countries modelled on the British judicial system ? Do you think each case should be taken on its merits ?

[littlebushy]

56 minutes ago, reptar said:

Thanks John, not just a prompt, comprehensive response but a qualified one as well.😀

Very interesting, perhaps there are things to be inferred from the fact that she did not provide evidence. Or perhaps not, who knows.

Please can someone come on and give some uninformed speculation, or even better skeet. This is manxforums after all!

[John Wright]

28 minutes ago, Shake me up Judy said:

That's always been a huge historical anomaly in the justice system and I'd be interested in your take on it John. As most murders/manslaughters take place in a domestic setting, a spouse would be the only witness in many cases. How many prosecutions fail because there is no 'independent' third party witness ? When was this rule brought in, and is it the same in all countries modelled on the British judicial system ? Do you think each case should be taken on its merits ?

The rule is historic. Remember until quite late on even the defendant couldn’t give evidence on his own behalf. The justification was “coverture”. During a marriage the wife had no separate legal existence from her husband. Shared secrets of the marriage bed, etc.

More often than not the wife would have been the victim in any event. The rule is a common law one and spread wherever the British exported their legal system. It’s now much attenuated.

I think a fixed rule is safer than hours of wasted argument in each case. Especially with modern forensics.

[piebaps]

2 hours ago, littlebushy said:

Please can someone come on and give some uninformed speculation, or even better skeet. This is manxforums after all!

Sure

By Christ aye, a reliable source told me this. They're very reliable but I won't tell you anything else about them.

The spouses are usually part of "the establishment", they've been vaxxed and are full of nanobots. They're also masons, civil servants and teachers and therefore make unreliable witnesses. I also heard that they're part of DBC too.