Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC
What do you make of this? The only evidence they had was her fingerprints on one of contaminated saline packets. This wasn't enough to go through so she has been let free. Didn't it stop when she got arrested? :S
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC
What do you make of this? The only evidence they had was her fingerprints on one of contaminated saline packets. This wasn't enough to go through so she has been let free. Didn't it stop when she got arrested? :S
Well this is a very interesting situation. They can't hold her any longer I am assuming because the CPS have
come to the conclusion that they would not get a conviction on the 'evidence' they have. There is no reason she can't be re-arrested if further evidence comes to light. It could be a 'fishing expedition to see what she does next. On the other hand it could be contaminated saline that has been delivered to the hospital by a supplier. It will nevertheless be worth keeping up with developments on this story.
They must be at a loss of what to do. Yesterday this was the main BBC story and today one of the main stories they are running with is that the police have now decided to interview 500 more people. You would have thought they could have been doing this when they arrested Rebecca. It makes you think they must have been stone certain that they had who they thought was guilty. Rebecca released this through her family solicitor:
Quote:
"I''ve been in a living hell and was locked up in prison for something I had not done.
"It was so frustrating for me knowing that the person who actually carried out these terrible acts is still out there.
"My life has been turned upside-down. All I ever wanted to do was to pursue a profession in nursing and care for my patients."
Yes, I can see that although Dr. Shipman said virtually the same thing even when convicted. We are talking about a different breed of people here if she is guilty. I am also sure they have never stopped investigating this.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Lava-
Disgusting, she has been in custody since July.
The Police should not be able to detain anybody under any circumstances for more than a period of 24 hours.
In that case Dan, many, many serial killers would have carried on killing for a lot longer in this country. There has to be a bit of common sense here. How on earth could the police be expected to get unequivical evidence within 24 hours. Forensics take way more time than this. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
Then they shouldn't be arrested until enough evidence is found. Where is the line to be drawn? we can hold people under the vague 'terrorism' charges here (42 days) in this country for longer than they do in Zimbabwe (a week). If the Police are unable to find sufficent evidence within 24 hours of an arrest being made, which is only supposed to be made when sufficent evidence is found anyway, then there is no valid reason to keep somebody locked up. I am very sure that the Police in this case itself would have wanted another week, or another week ontop of that - the line should be drawn at 24 hours. Otherwise you go on a very slippery slope as we are with the example above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catzsy
It reminds me of this saying which I do love,
Quote:
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
A very, very niave way at looking at this problem, Dan. The police have the responsibility to protect the public from potentially very dangerous people. 24 hours is nowhere long enough. Her remand would have been dealt with by more than one judge who are probably in a better position to judge the facts of the case then any of us can assume. Also if her defence team had thought it terrible injustice they could have presented bail applications whenever they wanted.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
Please don't give me that nonsense, you people on the left don't give a figs leaf about 'protecting the public' - you've trashed our civil liberties in the name of 'protecting us' from crime whilst at the same time allowing dangerous offenders out early. You've trashed our civil liberties under the guise of 'terrorism' when infact terrorism is only a very small threat to this country which is fuelled by our foreign adventures overseas (which you support) - yet now you're telling me this is for 'my safety'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Catzsy
If the Police asked for another week under your argument, you'd have no problem with it - do you want to end up like continental European countries where people can be held without being charged for months and months upon end even going into years? I suspect you do.
But just wait until its you.
Hey, I am not amused that again you have made this personal against me as being a member 'of the left' and assuming what I am and what I think. Who the heck do you think you are Dan telling me what I am and what I think?:@:@:@ You have no clue about me as an individual as I have none about you. As it happens this has nothing to do with my political views but that I have gained a deeper insight into this sort of situation having worked in a Barristers ChambersQuote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
for many weeks this summer. My view is that they should only be kept for as long as it warrants it but as I said before 24 hours is nowhere near long enough to gather evidence that is all.
But you are a member of the left as you've clearly shown, and socialism is all against the principles of liberty. If you don't like me pointing this out then at least make an effort to stand by why we should lose our personal freedoms because I really would like to hear an argument from you telling me why I should have my liberties taken from me by government when the same government makes no real effort to punish criminals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catzsy
In times during the past you have defended the previous Labour government which was possibly the most authoritarian government we have ever had; destroying precious liberties under the guise of the next-to-none threat of terrorism, destroying liberties in an attempt to look hard on crime when infact the criminals were treated more softly than ever before and that is how I know what you think.
What, like a third world despotism? How can you blast third world regimes and call for them to be toppled by the west in then name of freedom when you wish to install the same judical system right here, in our own country?Quote:
Originally Posted by -Catzsy
I really think you should have a look at the passage I posted earlier and think whether you wish to hand government that power.
Yes I lean to the left as you well know and I am proud of it. Things in this world are not all black and white though you know. As I have explained before there are many forms of socialism as there are many forms of capitalism. What I feel though is that whilst you have very different opinion to me I respect your right to hold them and I do not personally attack you in a very exagerated way by stereotyping me as someone who is a sheep and just follows all forms of socialism. I have my own mind and opinions. It's posts like your previous one that put me off even posting in this forum and I have the right not to post a reply. For someone who believes in liberty and personal freedom you seem to negate this by actually sending visitor messages to people asking them to reply. That's a bit of a dichotomy don't you think?Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
I love current affairs as much as you do but it would be nice to have a more objective, less personally negative reply. I am not in agreement with having a 24 hour limit because of the harm it could do by releasing potentially dangerous people back on the streets. It is not common sense to believe that the police and CPS could come up with a bullet proof case in that time with these type of cases. In any event most people are out within 24 hours whether they are charged or not. If they want to detain them for more than 24 hours then they have to put a case before the court to do so. In this country the legal system is completely independent of the government.
As far as terrorism is concerned the Geneva Convention does not apply and this country would be in a much worse state if suspects had not been detained. It includes plots that were foiled at an early stage before any materials were actually assembled. Terrorism is alive and well in this country and the authorities need the power to be able to stop these atrocities happening. What is not acceptable is the amount of totally innocent suspects detained. Hopefully they will learn from the past here. This country is nothing like a third world depotism and has a long way to go before we even think it is.
Soft on criminals? I don't agree with being soft on them and I never have although I don't believe in capital punishment but do believe in abortion in some circumstances which probably is a bit hypocrital of me but thats what I believe. Having said that you don't believe in abortion but you believe in capital punishment so you could say the same applies.:P Exactly what freedoms are you losing?
I simply find it strange how you quickly become on the defensive of yourself rather than attack my views of socialism whenever I rightly label you as left wing. I made the charge that you supported the last government which was one of the most authoritian in our entire history - this has not been met with an intellifgent defence of the last government (which you should provide if you support them) but the usual 'well you have your opinion and I have mine' - indeed we do, but I want to argue against that opinion (which I do).Quote:
Originally Posted by Catzsy
Actually thats me exercising my personal liberty, should you choose not to reply I think that reflects badly upon you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catzsy
What limit then? why not a limitless limit like you suggest? have you no idea how this can be abused? its all very well saying "well we'll learn from mistakes" but that is not good enough. Government never ever learns. A period of 24 hours is more than sufficent to charge anybody with a crime, should the Police not have enough evidence by this time period then the person should be free to walk - to withold somebody for more than 24 hours whilst lacking evidence is a gross attack on civil liberties and should be resisted by thse who value civil liberties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catzsy
But then i'm arguing here with someone who does not, as shown by the bold if not scary statement I quote below.
The Geneva Convention does not concern me, what concerns me is the attack on old English liberty. The very notion of 'terrorism' (which is purposely vague, as shown by your point on the convention) is a fallacy - terrorism can be classed as intention to cause murder which should it be carried out the people responsible should be charged with murder. The excuse of terror (however much we disagree on the threat it poses, personally I see it as very little as more people die from car crashes every month than they do terrorism every year) is not an excuse to destroy our civil liberties under. If we are to destroy our civil liberties in the name of this threat however, then what is the point in these wars which you say are to bring about freedom?Quote:
Originally Posted by Catzsy
Democracy after all does not gurantee freedom, liberty does.
As for 'this country is nothing like a third world despotism' I quote you here and ask you to re-examine whether you actually wish for this country to become a third world depositism in your desire to end innocent until proven guilty;
..also see the European Arrest Warrant (EAW).Quote:
Originally Posted by What you said earlier
There's nothing hypocritical on my stance at all concerning death penalty vs abortion. I believe that death should be used as the ultimate punishment. I believe in a justice system which uses punishment against those found guilty of terrible crimes. As the unborn are not guilty of any crime and have not be tried by any court of law in which a jury is present, there is no reason for their death or murder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catzsy
Whats interesting though, is that you are against the execution of convicted criminals who have a right of appeal before a court of jury - yet you are fine, as you say, with the deaths of the innocent unborn and the countless untried innocent in wars/drone bombings. I do not see the logic and would ask you to re-examine it with a logical viewpoint as I did.