Lorry driver killed cyclist, threw bike into undergrowth.

number9

It's staggering in the first place that "I didn't see you" is accepted as an excuse when it's a clear admission of Dangerous Driving. In what other endeavour would "I didn't see you!" result in no charges?

Running down a high street with a chainsaw?

Lobbing bricks off a bridge?

If anyone gets hurt or killed by the chainsaw or brick, would "I didn't see them!" be considered in mitigation?

Something is badly wrong when the CPS, on the basis of a driver admitting they didn't see a vulnerable road user, decide not to proceed.

But then blind spot mirrors cost £30, whilst a typical fine for killing a cyclist through inattention is £300. To many drivers, that's an acceptable risk. Kill someone and get fined less than a week's wages.

spen666

number9 wrote:

It's staggering in the first place that "I didn't see you" is accepted as an excuse when it's a clear admission of Dangerous Driving. In what other endeavour would "I didn't see you!" result in no charges?

....Something is badly wrong when the CPS, on the basis of a driver admitting they didn't see a vulnerable road user, decide not to proceed.

.....

In law, its more likely to be an admission of careless driving.

There is often frustration within the cPS that courts whether Mags or Jury at Crown Court repeatedly refuse to convict ofmotoring offences.

CPS cannot bring a case unless they believe there is a reasonable prospect of convixction. The verdicts ( often seemingly peverse) brought in by courts makes it difficult to meet the reasonable prospect of conviction test.

It is more a problem with the attitudes of society at large we need to change. The blame is often unfairly put on the CPS.

BTW I do not and never have worked for the CPS. I worked asa defence lawyer and still work in Criminal justice system, so come into contact with CPS and their files on a daily basis

yoohoo999

www.goingroundincircles.com

number9

spen666 wrote:

number9 wrote:

It's staggering in the first place that "I didn't see you" is accepted as an excuse when it's a clear admission of Dangerous Driving. In what other endeavour would "I didn't see you!" result in no charges?

....Something is badly wrong when the CPS, on the basis of a driver admitting they didn't see a vulnerable road user, decide not to proceed.

.....

In law, its more likely to be an admission of careless driving.

There is often frustration within the cPS that courts whether Mags or Jury at Crown Court repeatedly refuse to convict ofmotoring offences.

CPS cannot bring a case unless they believe there is a reasonable prospect of convixction. The verdicts ( often seemingly peverse) brought in by courts makes it difficult to meet the reasonable prospect of conviction test.

It is more a problem with the attitudes of society at large we need to change. The blame is often unfairly put on the CPS.

BTW I do not and never have worked for the CPS. I worked asa defence lawyer and still work in Criminal justice system, so come into contact with CPS and their files on a daily basis

I'm sure this is true, but decisions like this are baffling:

We are members of Reading Cycling Club, gathered here this afternoon in a quiet protest or short vigil in memory of our fellow cyclist Anthony Maynard, who was killed by a van driver exactly a year ago on the A4130 north of Henley.

We make our protest at the Thames Valley offices of the Crown Prosecution Service, whose officers last year inappropriately, remissly, and to our minds unforgivably decided that the van driver who struck Anthony (and his companion) from behind would not face charges. We did not, and do not hold Anthony’s life so cheap.

We append a quotation from Christopher G. Thompson, ‘District Crown Prosecutor, Oxford Rural’, in a letter sent by him to one of the Reading CC committee who had written deploring this failure to prosecute (dated 16 March 2009): “the fact that no prosecution has followed in this case does not in any way mean or suggest that drivers may drive carelessly around cyclists or that cyclists will not be afforded the protection of the law where appropriate.”

In what must have been a considered letter, that phrasing about ‘affording’ cyclists “the protection of the law where appropriate” is chilling: NO, Mr Thompson, NO! The protection of the law. Full stop.

http://www.readingcyclingclub.com/node/373


The cyclist was an experienced rider, killed in broad daylight by a driver who offered the excuse "I didn't see him!"

The CPS did nothing.

spen666

number9 wrote:

....


I'm sure this is true, but decisions like this are baffling:

We are members of Reading Cycling Club, gathered here this afternoon in a quiet protest or short vigil in memory of our fellow cyclist Anthony Maynard, who was killed by a van driver exactly a year ago on the A4130 north of Henley.

We make our protest at the Thames Valley offices of the Crown Prosecution Service, whose officers last year inappropriately, remissly, and to our minds unforgivably decided that the van driver who struck Anthony (and his companion) from behind would not face charges. We did not, and do not hold Anthony’s life so cheap.

We append a quotation from Christopher G. Thompson, ‘District Crown Prosecutor, Oxford Rural’, in a letter sent by him to one of the Reading CC committee who had written deploring this failure to prosecute (dated 16 March 2009): “the fact that no prosecution has followed in this case does not in any way mean or suggest that drivers may drive carelessly around cyclists or that cyclists will not be afforded the protection of the law where appropriate.”

In what must have been a considered letter, that phrasing about ‘affording’ cyclists “the protection of the law where appropriate” is chilling: NO, Mr Thompson, NO! The protection of the law. Full stop.

http://www.readingcyclingclub.com/node/373


The cyclist was an experienced rider, killed in broad daylight by a driver who offered the excuse "I didn't see him!"

The CPS did nothing.

no, decisions like that are not baffling at all if you look at the evidence

Just because the alleged victim of ascrime says something, it does not make it true.

I know quite a lot about the facts of the case you refer to.

Yoiu are quoting from the naturally biased account of 1 party to the incident.

Try finding all the facts before coming to the decision that party a is guilty or a decision not to prosecute is baffling.

#remember EVIDENCE is need to convict someone. The rant of one person may contain little that is evidence

White Horse

spen666 wrote:

no, decisions like that are not baffling at all if you look at the evidence

Just because the alleged victim of ascrime says something, it does not make it true.

I know quite a lot about the facts of the case you refer to.

Yoiu are quoting from the naturally biased account of 1 party to the incident.

Try finding all the facts before coming to the decision that party a is guilty or a decision not to prosecute is baffling.

#remember EVIDENCE is need to convict someone. The rant of one person may contain little that is evidence

I think the point was that SMIDSY was the defence and that that is just ridiculous. Sounds a lot better from the defendent's point of view than "I wasn't paying attention". If he'd hit a car and said he didn't see it, expect a careless driving charge almost immediately.

spen666

White Horse wrote:

spen666 wrote:

no, decisions like that are not baffling at all if you look at the evidence

Just because the alleged victim of ascrime says something, it does not make it true.

I know quite a lot about the facts of the case you refer to.

Yoiu are quoting from the naturally biased account of 1 party to the incident.

Try finding all the facts before coming to the decision that party a is guilty or a decision not to prosecute is baffling.

#remember EVIDENCE is need to convict someone. The rant of one person may contain little that is evidence

I think the point was that SMIDSY was the defence and that that is just ridiculous. Sounds a lot better from the defendent's point of view than "I wasn't paying attention". If he'd hit a car and said he didn't see it, expect a careless driving charge almost immediately.

Again, it matters not what you say or think. its what the court do that determines things

If the Jury or the magistrates wont convict, then there is no realistic prospect of a conviction.

In the lorry driver case, the CPS did proceed on death by dangerous driving, but the jury convicted of the lesser death by careless charge.

gabriel959

Thats why juries don't work IMO. They are just a waste of space.

Good for movies and TV series though.

spen666

gabriel959 wrote:

Thats why juries don't work IMO. They are just a waste of space.

Good for movies and TV series though.

Hmm but juries are people like you?

You want to hand the power away from the public to the state? Sounds like a recipe for a dictatorship. I'd rather keep the jury system

White Horse

spen666 wrote:

Again, it matters not what you say or think. its what the court do that determines things

If the Jury or the magistrates wont convict, then there is no realistic prospect of a conviction.

I know, but in terms of campaigning and mentioning something to your MP, why is SMIDSY a valid defence in a collision with a cyclist yet not with a car (or even a pedestrian for that matter)?

spen666

White Horse wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Again, it matters not what you say or think. its what the court do that determines things

If the Jury or the magistrates wont convict, then there is no realistic prospect of a conviction.

I know, but in terms of campaigning and mentioning something to your MP, why is SMIDSY a valid defence in a collision with a cyclist yet not with a car (or even a pedestrian for that matter)?

SMIDSY should not be acceptable as a defence.

However to abolsih juries and effectively tear up all the protection we as individualshave had since the magna carta because of one type of jury verdict is incredibly stupid.

We need to educate the public at large re what is acceptable driving standards. In the same way that attitudes towards drink driving or racism were changed

White Horse

spen666 wrote:

White Horse wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Again, it matters not what you say or think. its what the court do that determines things

If the Jury or the magistrates wont convict, then there is no realistic prospect of a conviction.

I know, but in terms of campaigning and mentioning something to your MP, why is SMIDSY a valid defence in a collision with a cyclist yet not with a car (or even a pedestrian for that matter)?

SMIDSY should not be acceptable as a defence.

However to abolsih juries and effectively tear up all the protection we as individualshave had since the magna carta because of one type of jury verdict is incredibly stupid.

We need to educate the public at large re what is acceptable driving standards. In the same way that attitudes towards drink driving or racism were changed

Agree with what you're saying. Point of order: It wasn't me who said scrap juries.

EC2boy

I tend to lurk on this forum rather than chip in. But am really intereste by spen666's point about needing to educate attitutdes and acceptable driving standards. I'm sure there's a legal liability issue to but I'm not really able to comment on that because I don't have a legal background.

What strikes me is that there a lot of people like the people on this site who are really passionate about cycling. Passionate enough to contribute time to this sort of site.

And this site is almost scarily full of grim-ish experiences with idiot drivers.

And yet (and I really don't mean this critically), we're all spending a lot of effort writing into a website. While in the mainstream press, journalists are ranting messages almost full of hate for cyclists.

It just doesn't seem right.

Loads of people feel wronged by the legal system and the lack of protection for cyclists. Lots of people feel offended by utterly misrepresentative and antagonistic journalism.

Am I being naive, or shouldn't we able to collect our experiences and our energies and our passion and actually do something about these trends?

I don’t feel particularly represented by cycling groups like the London Cycling Campaign or CTC. I’m trying, in the area where I live, to push my local council and to get cyclists together to help push for better facilities for cyclists.

But isn’t it time that, as cyclists, we stood up with a more organised voice and tried to make things change?

Am I being hyper-naïve?

gabriel959

EC2boy wrote:

I tend to lurk on this forum rather than chip in. But am really intereste by spen666's point about needing to educate attitutdes and acceptable driving standards. I'm sure there's a legal liability issue to but I'm not really able to comment on that because I don't have a legal background.

What strikes me is that there a lot of people like the people on this site who are really passionate about cycling. Passionate enough to contribute time to this sort of site.

And this site is almost scarily full of grim-ish experiences with idiot drivers.

And yet (and I really don't mean this critically), we're all spending a lot of effort writing into a website. While in the mainstream press, journalists are ranting messages almost full of hate for cyclists.

It just doesn't seem right.

Loads of people feel wronged by the legal system and the lack of protection for cyclists. Lots of people feel offended by utterly misrepresentative and antagonistic journalism.

Am I being naive, or shouldn't we able to collect our experiences and our energies and our passion and actually do something about these trends?

I don’t feel particularly represented by cycling groups like the London Cycling Campaign or CTC. I’m trying, in the area where I live, to push my local council and to get cyclists together to help push for better facilities for cyclists.

But isn’t it time that, as cyclists, we stood up with a more organised voice and tried to make things change?

Am I being hyper-naïve?

I think the time is nearing for that kind of thing to happen. I feel exactly the same about those cycling organizations you have mentioned.

All I know is that when it happens I will definitely take part in it!

EC2boy

Thanks Gabriel.

It just feels like there's mroe and more noise about cycling at the moment to the point that something has to happen. And we risk being representing by campaign groups that aren't really doing it for me, at least. If you look at LCC, for example, its membership size has hardly budged in a decade. Which feels odd, given that the nubmer of cyclists in central London at least, has grown so much. That suggests to me that LCC isn't representing people well, otherwise they'd be joining up in droves.

I think the only way people will sit up and take notice is if people either make an awful lot of noise and you change opinion that way (whether that's legal opinion, social opinion or town planning opinion) or if you have money to influence things. And LCC and CTC don't have money, really. At least, they don't have, say, the £200 million that London's councils earn from car parking fines each year. By which I mean that's the sort of amount of money you might need to wean councils off their habit of raising money through carpark fines and their associated fear of people not drivign around in cars so much.

Anyhow, it just strikes me that we have cyclists who are excellent lawyers, excellent marketers, excellent campaigners, town planners. There's a whole set of skills out there. And they're not really pointing in a direction to influence. And I'd love it if people could really get together and make a change. It would take years but if that's what it takes, then so be it...Mad?

gabriel959

spen666 wrote:

White Horse wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Again, it matters not what you say or think. its what the court do that determines things

If the Jury or the magistrates wont convict, then there is no realistic prospect of a conviction.

I know, but in terms of campaigning and mentioning something to your MP, why is SMIDSY a valid defence in a collision with a cyclist yet not with a car (or even a pedestrian for that matter)?

SMIDSY should not be acceptable as a defence.

However to abolsih juries and effectively tear up all the protection we as individualshave had since the magna carta because of one type of jury verdict is incredibly stupid.

We need to educate the public at large re what is acceptable driving standards. In the same way that attitudes towards drink driving or racism were changed

I am quite against about jury trials for the following reasons…

In highly controversial or emotional cases such as this one it would be difficult to keep a cool head and make a decision based on evidence and not emotional feelings. I read this quote once in Spain, “it’s like riding a ship into a storm”.

Prejudice could also be a massive factor. What chance does a cyclist have in hands of a jury full of professional drivers (unlikely but could happen)?

I think a decision by a judge or a bench is usually fairer, they are trained and they need to give a reason why unlike jury trials.

I could go on and on but I personally don’t think they offer anything positive (apart from may be in cases where the government might be implicated but then you also have the opposite effect).

What we should strive for is for a judiciary system completely independent from the government and please no jury trials. I don’t want to be judged by you or my neighbour.

number9

spen666 wrote:

number9 wrote:

....


I'm sure this is true, but decisions like this are baffling:

We are members of Reading Cycling Club, gathered here this afternoon in a quiet protest or short vigil in memory of our fellow cyclist Anthony Maynard, who was killed by a van driver exactly a year ago on the A4130 north of Henley.

We make our protest at the Thames Valley offices of the Crown Prosecution Service, whose officers last year inappropriately, remissly, and to our minds unforgivably decided that the van driver who struck Anthony (and his companion) from behind would not face charges. We did not, and do not hold Anthony’s life so cheap.

We append a quotation from Christopher G. Thompson, ‘District Crown Prosecutor, Oxford Rural’, in a letter sent by him to one of the Reading CC committee who had written deploring this failure to prosecute (dated 16 March 2009): “the fact that no prosecution has followed in this case does not in any way mean or suggest that drivers may drive carelessly around cyclists or that cyclists will not be afforded the protection of the law where appropriate.”

In what must have been a considered letter, that phrasing about ‘affording’ cyclists “the protection of the law where appropriate” is chilling: NO, Mr Thompson, NO! The protection of the law. Full stop.

http://www.readingcyclingclub.com/node/373


The cyclist was an experienced rider, killed in broad daylight by a driver who offered the excuse "I didn't see him!"

The CPS did nothing.

no, decisions like that are not baffling at all if you look at the evidence

Just because the alleged victim of ascrime says something, it does not make it true.

I know quite a lot about the facts of the case you refer to.

Yoiu are quoting from the naturally biased account of 1 party to the incident.

Try finding all the facts before coming to the decision that party a is guilty or a decision not to prosecute is baffling.

#remember EVIDENCE is need to convict someone. The rant of one person may contain little that is evidence

Really?

Another biased source, but the decision seems strange:

The older Mr Maynard said: “I do not accept the decision.

“While I wouldn’t wish any charge to be brought unless an offence were suspected, were there the slightest grounds for suspicion, then of course, a jury should have that chance to see evidence, then decide guilt or otherwise.

“In my opinion, this CPS decision has removed that opportunity right at the outset.

“The CPS’s own guidelines in these situations state that these decisions must be influenced by the public interest.

“Surely it is in the public interest that a jury have the opportunity to decide guilt when an innocent cyclist is killed from behind on a clear road?

“When a driver collides with an innocent cyclist from behind, in this case two, then barring acts of god, or overwhelmingly adverse conditions, there has to be careless driving involved.

“Accidents just don’t happen.

“Cyclists have a basic right to be spared the constant fear of being hit by motor vehicles.

“The message needs to be driven home that even the slightest lack of care whilst driving can have devastating consequences.

“With driving comes responsibility.”

Mr Maynard, of London Road, Earley, explained his son was a good, experienced rider.

“Anthony, was a known good, safe cyclist, and was not at fault,” he continued.

“The investigation proved that, as if I needed confirmation. He was a competent and proficient amateur sports cyclist who was always mindful of road safety.”

Crown Prosecution Service spokesman Ben Harding said: “We reviewed this case according to the Code for Crown Prosecutors and decided not to prosecute.

“Cost is not a factor in the code. We are happy to give a full explanation of our decision to Mr Maynard’s father.”

A date for an inquest into Mr Maynard’s death has yet to be set.

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2040 ... s_decision

I can't find any other evidence that would excuse the driver, where can I find that please?

Hundreds of yards of clear visibility, a cyclist run down from behind, no charges brought.

yoohoo999

gabriel959 wrote:

I think a decision by a judge or a bench is usually fairer, they are trained and they need to give a reason why unlike jury trials.

What we should strive for is for a judiciary system completely independent from the government and please no jury trials. I don’t want to be judged by you or my neighbour.

Problem is, judges are appointed, not elected. And they are terribly difficult to get rid of if they are rubbish (which a sizable portion are!)

In respect of your second point, the judiciary IS completely independent from the government (well the executive anyway). Having a jury actually actually makes it even more independent when you consider that judges are appointed.

You would actually be surpised, it's not that often that juries really make a big mistake on a serious crime. And if they do, it's quite often down to poor direction from the judge!

Terra Nova

In our Tony's case the CPS did go for the charges with gusto. They pursued our Tony's case at great expense to all of us, and that gave our Tony's life the respect and dignity he deserved. I will always be grateful to the CPS man, Mr David Taylor for that, and so will my family. I said in my post above we did think on hearing the full details of his death that his case was manslaughter, but the CPS knew the difficulty lies in the court room, the law and its interpretation. I can only quote from my experience of the CPS but the CPS in Wakefield did everything they could to get justice.

The law and the court room see every collision involving a motor vehicle as an accident first. The Oxford Dictionary states an accident is: "an incident that happens by chance or without apparent cause." It is this fundamental stance that will continue to mean that lives lost on the roads are completely acceptable and will go on happening with impunity. "Without cause" means nothing will be learned. No-one has to learn because the accident principle also negates any responsibility for drivers' actions whilst driving. Every single road traffic collision has a cause, and human error, judgement or intent is behind the vast majority of those causes.

HGV drivers, car drivers, bus drivers et al, who are the cause of road traffic collisions that cause death will always be able to exploit the accident principle. HGV haulage firms too will dismiss death caused their drivers as par for the course. The accident principle protects people who have killed psychologically, as in Andrew Stubbs, the man who killed my brother. He seems very comfortable with killing another person and denies any resp[onsibility whatsoever. The court upholds this with the law and the verdicts they pass, and this is why drivers who have killed can come to see themselves as victims, and why there is so much animosity, hatred and contempt out there for cyclists - because cyclists force drivers into bad decisions and force them into causing "accidents"..

I suggest a mass protest. I suggest action. My brother was intelligent, fit and healthy. He believed in justice for the vulnerable in society. He believed in his rights to use the roads with his bicycle in exactly the same way as drivers use their vehicles. He never drove a car in his life and cycled thousands of miles. We got the feeling he was hated by the Stubbs family. He got the feeling he was hated by some motorists on the road as they continually put his life in danger by their actions. He would be furious at what Stubbs did, and at what so many other drivers do to cyclists, pedestrians and other drivers.

When can we start organising?

number9

The court upholds this with the law and the verdicts they pass, and this is why drivers who have killed can come to see themselves as victims, and why there is so much animosity, hatred and contempt out there for cyclists - because cyclists force drivers into bad decisions and force them into causing "accidents"..

An animosity unique in Europe.

Look at the last few media articles about cyclists.

"Ipod zombies" , slagging off cyclists for listening to music and claiming it's causing deaths, based on a single fatality in which it was not proved the cyclist was doing anything of the kind.

"Are cyclists a menace?" - a debate in a right-wing magazine that sets out its stall right from the off.

And today, an article that suggests cycling is dangerous when the risks are the same as for gardening.

The pictures of Stubbs grinning outside the court give an indication of the man's character

The Oxford Dictionary states an accident is: "an incident that happens by chance or without apparent cause."

95% of Road Traffic Accidents have driver error as a factor.

Drivers like to blame the road, the weather, speed cameras, distractions, mechanical problems, any and everything bar their own reckless stupidity.

I massively respect your public comments about what happened to Tony, i doubt I would have the strength to behave as well as you have done. I suspect, in fact, I would consider retributive action against the grinning potato head Mr Stubbs, but that of course would be wrong.

spen666

gabriel959 wrote:

I am quite against about jury trials for the following reasons…

In highly controversial or emotional cases such as this one it would be difficult to keep a cool head and make a decision based on evidence and not emotional feelings. I read this quote once in Spain, “it’s like riding a ship into a storm”.

Prejudice could also be a massive factor. What chance does a cyclist have in hands of a jury full of professional drivers (unlikely but could happen)?

I think a decision by a judge or a bench is usually fairer, they are trained and they need to give a reason why unlike jury trials.

I could go on and on but I personally don’t think they offer anything positive (apart from may be in cases where the government might be implicated but then you also have the opposite effect).

What we should strive for is for a judiciary system completely independent from the government and please no jury trials. I don’t want to be judged by you or my neighbour.

Gabriel, you either have not thought through what the consequences of what you propose are.

firstly - if you abolish Jury trial, you have abolished the right to a trial by your peers.

Who decides guilt? The judiciary? Who appoints the judiciary? The government of the day.


Imagine we abolished juries and had judges deciding guilt.

Labour are in power- they fear losing the next election so have David Cameron arrested on a trumped up charge of some sort- perhaps some form of treason or the like.

he goes on trial before judges appointed by the labour party.

Think he will get a fair trial?

now what about anyone else who expresses views that upset the ruling party- the same will happen

Congratulations, you have just abolished democracy overnight and created a dictatorship

spen666

gabriel959 wrote:

....

Prejudice could also be a massive factor. What chance does a cyclist have in hands of a jury full of professional drivers (unlikely but could happen)?
.....

What chance does the cyclist have in the hands of a judge who is a driver and not a cyclist?

This is far more likely than a jury full of drivers

1 out 1 is more likely than 12/12 ( or 13 if its the baker on trial)

number9

I know quite a lot about the facts of the case you refer to.

Care to share them?

spen666

number9 wrote:

I know quite a lot about the facts of the case you refer to.

Care to share them?

I'd love to, but my job means I can't.

I read the fileas part of my work, but am not allowed to divulge what is on the file.

number9

Try finding all the facts before coming to the decision that party a is guilty or a decision not to prosecute is baffling.

Well, I tried!

dilemna

spen666 wrote:

gabriel959 wrote:

....

Prejudice could also be a massive factor. What chance does a cyclist have in hands of a jury full of professional drivers (unlikely but could happen)?
.....

What chance does the cyclist have in the hands of a judge who is a driver and not a cyclist?

This is far more likely than a jury full of drivers

1 out 1 is more likely than 12/12 ( or 13 if its the baker on trial)

France and the rest of Europe seem to get on quite well with an Inquisitorial system which uses an investigating magistrate/judge AFAIK to manage an investigation, consider evidence and submissions, and then decide issues of culpability.

A single judge is subject to the usual appeals AFAIK, so cannot reach a decision at odds with the law or evidence. Sometimes I think this system would have great merit.

Of course under our system Damien Green was arrested and faced charges of leaking senstive government information on grounds of national security IIRC so abuses can occur both under our adversarial and jury system and also the European Inquisitorial jurisdictions.

spen666

dilemna wrote:

....
Of course under our system Damien Green was arrested and faced charges of leaking senstive government information on grounds of national security IIRC so abuses can occur both under our adversarial and jury system and also the European Inquisitorial jurisdictions.

Erm

I think you will find that: -
a) Damien Green did not face any charges at all. He was arrested interviewed and subsequently released with no further action. He was not charged.

b) To arrest someone where there are reasonable grounds to suspect they have committed a crime is not an abuse at all

c) What was being proposed earlier was not an inquistorial system but merely a removal of a jury and effectively Diplock courts to replace them. Just ask the northern Irish how successful they were

Mr Sworld

spen666 wrote:

Imagine we abolished juries and had judges deciding guilt.

Labour are in power- they fear losing the next election so have David Cameron arrested on a trumped up charge of some sort- perhaps some form of treason or the like.

he goes on trial before judges appointed by the labour party.

Think he will get a fair trial?

now what about anyone else who expresses views that upset the ruling party- the same will happen

Congratulations, you have just abolished democracy overnight and created a dictatorship

Nice analogy there......

Now I have finished laughing! To quote you...

Please....

NGale

Mr Sworld wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Imagine we abolished juries and had judges deciding guilt.

Labour are in power- they fear losing the next election so have David Cameron arrested on a trumped up charge of some sort- perhaps some form of treason or the like.

he goes on trial before judges appointed by the labour party.

Think he will get a fair trial?

now what about anyone else who expresses views that upset the ruling party- the same will happen

Congratulations, you have just abolished democracy overnight and created a dictatorship

Nice analogy there......

Now I have finished laughing! To quote you...

Please....

and how come your daft enough to be still up at this time of the day?!!

Mr Sworld

Double post!