Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
31
Luke Mitchell and the murder of Jodi Jones / Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
« Last post by David1819 on February 28, 2021, 04:31:PM »
Sandra needs to clarify publicly that Joseph DID NOT confess and that Corinne was confused, she won't though. She's happy to let people believe it knowing it isn't true.

What exactly is Sandra's motive for doing all this?  :-\
32
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: New article:
« Last post by Adam on February 28, 2021, 04:18:PM »
Why would TFG officers cover up that Sheila had first been seen alive in the kitchen?

It's the reason the police set up the industrial frame department.

After spending a month saying it was Sheila!
33
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: New article:
« Last post by Adam on February 28, 2021, 03:49:PM »
Mike's view that the police shot Sheila twice is not supported by the evidence. This shows the weapon on Sheila had shot her.

Again the police would not hide the fact that they had shot a woman twice who had been holding a rifle.
34
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: New article:
« Last post by Adam on February 28, 2021, 03:45:PM »
'But let's say the raid officers did shoot Sheila accidentally.  Let's consider this.  In that scenario, you would be dealing with a mistake in which perhaps only one, or at most two, raid officers know the truth and, fearing a prosecution for manslaughter and the end of their police careers, decided to say nothing.'

----------

Don't see how they could shoot her accidentially. When moving the rifle prior to taking the photos, their hands would not go near the trigger, let alone squeeze it.

Any accidential shot would be one shot as Sheila was already dead from her first shot. So no chance of a prosecution or a police officer losing his job. So no reason to hide the fact.

36
Luke Mitchell and the murder of Jodi Jones / Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
« Last post by Steve_uk on February 28, 2021, 03:35:PM »
Sandra needs to clarify publicly that Joseph DID NOT confess and that Corinne was confused, she won't though. She's happy to let people believe it knowing it isn't true.
Could you elucidate Lithium? I'm not sure what point you're getting at.
37
Luke Mitchell and the murder of Jodi Jones / Re: Scott Forbes and Sandra Lean
« Last post by Steve_uk on February 28, 2021, 03:34:PM »
Sandra should be commended on her work on this case, whose trial was tarnished by the prejudicial Press coverage on a 14-year-old youth. The verdict should be considered unsafe.
39
Off Topic / Re: the man who shouldent be king.
« Last post by Steve_uk on February 28, 2021, 03:27:PM »
I think what you say above reflects a very common misunderstanding, which even educated people repeat as if it's gospel.  I believe you are mistaken.  In fact, the Queen is supposed to be impartial, but that does not mean she is supposed to be neutral.  Her role is political and she can, if she wishes, intervene in politics. There is even an argument that it is her duty to do so, and one of the popular criticisms of her is her failure to do so.  In any event, it's fundamental to her role to do so, though I would completely accept that she should be extremely circumspect and cautious in doing so, and it probably should be rare.

Ironically, Elizabeth II is perhaps the most political of all the late modern monarchs.  Consider for instance the Queen's Annual Christmas Message.  What she says is extremely political and ideological.  That brings us to what disappoints me about Her Majesty and why I believe she is one of the worst monarchs in this country's history.  It is not the fact she intervenes that bothers me, it is what she says.  If you search on YouTube or through some other source one of her early televised Xmas addresses from the 1950s, you will notice that she is a happy young woman, and her message is traditional and positive, and she has a certain warmth and charm about her.  Now, in her old age, her messages have become patronising, preachy and ideological, in tune with the toxic orthodoxy of the time.  I think part of her problem is her brand of Christianity: Calvinism.  It can be easily twisted into a self-abnegating mindset.

She did not stand against the times.  She should have been steadfast in 1997, instead she relented and then gave away more and more, thinking this would save the Windsor dynasty and/or the Monarchy.  I think this was wrong.  She should have got her hands dirty, but for the opposite side.  Better still, she could have simply maintained a studied silence in the face of it all - that would have sent a powerful message too.

I don't personally believe in mass democracy.  I think people voting on things is dumb.  Liberty is the system I prefer, though that is a misnomer because it is not really a 'system'.  It is more of a philosophy that depends on each person practicing the same broad value of leaving other people alone, with interference only to the extent needed.  I think in that way of life, most problems would sort out themselves, mainly through voluntary decisions and choices.

Law should be for the courts, not Parliament.  Parliament should only intervene in society in very extreme circumstances, such as national territorial defence or a genuinely lethal pandemic that has scores of healthy people dropping dead in the streets, etc.
Your ignorance knows no bounds. The Head of the Church of England will be pleased QCChevalier regards her as a Calvinist. As for impartiality, I've no doubt she has her private thoughts, though has been scrupulous over the years not to reveal her views, with one possible exception during the Scottish independence referendum of 2014.

This is an example of political intervention of a monarch: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2706589/Find-reason-war-Germany-Shocking-letter-documents-King-George-V-urged-foreign-secretary-justify-conflict-two-days-outbreak-First-World-War.html

A warning from history for Her Majesty: https://youtu.be/rb2CKfBfHnU

Finally, a second plea to correct your orthography: https://www.crownacademyenglish.com/difference-between-practice-and-practise/
40
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: New article:
« Last post by Steve_uk on February 28, 2021, 03:13:PM »
How different could Sheila's life have been had she not been coerced by her mother into having an abortion when she was 17, but instead encouraged to marry Colin Caffell and have a family of her own.
I agree with Doctor Hugh Cameron Ferguson's assesment here:

"I think Sheila's delusional thoughts would have been shaped by her mother's religiosity but that wouldn't have happened if she hadn't been schizophrenic."

In addition June could surely not be blamed for the way Sheila treated Colin behind closed doors.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10