http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/8472265.stm
Quite frankly I cannot understand why these two were not done for attempted murder.
Quite frankly I cannot understand why these two were not done for attempted murder.
-
Rule Number 1 - Assuming that you have a valid contract in place always try to get your poo onto your timesheet, provided that the timesheet is valid for your current contract and covers the period of time that you are billing for.
I preferred version 1! -
Sickening. I hope the victims are recovering well.Older and ...well, just older!! -
scum
should be shot
as should there quite evidently pointless parents.
in fact even better lets just take them into a wood kick the tulip out of them and leave them to die.Comment
-
Haven't we been through this? At the time of the incident they were (or one of them certainly) doli incapax or below the age of criminal responsibility.Originally posted by TonyEnglish View PostWork in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ hereComment
-
Another few years the boys will be released, given new lives, jobs and flown off to Canada/Australia.
Sound familiar?Comment
-
According to the paper at the time, it was because that requires a higher level of proof that would be difficult to achieve in this case and they may get off, and to save the victims from a harsh cross-examination.Originally posted by TonyEnglish View Post
Not a satisfactory explanation, methinks. When the two victims are older, I suspect they will not be satisfied.My all-time favourite Dilbert cartoon, this is: BTW, a Dumpster is a brand of skip, I think.Comment
-
We get theirs.Originally posted by zeitghostMy all-time favourite Dilbert cartoon, this is: BTW, a Dumpster is a brand of skip, I think.Comment
-
They wern't done for attempted murder partly because at the time of the assault they were below the age of criminal responcibility and partly because burden of proof for a murder charge is higher than that for assault/gbh/abh with intent.Originally posted by TonyEnglish View Post
This does not mean that they will not get substantial sentances. The only differance between a convition for murder and a conviction for another aussault is the minimum tariff set for sentancing, it does not affect the maximum sentance the judge can impose.
Just because they were not convivcted of murder does not mean they will not get a long sentance. Indeed the psychiatric reports of the younger of the two indicate that he is a seriously disturbed individual who will pose a significant threat to the public in future and he is likely to get a sentance of life or close to it in a secure hospital.
I would expect to see sentances of between 20-30 years and Life, with parole conditional on satisfactory psychatric evaluations."Being nice costs nothing and sometimes gets you extra bacon" - Pondlife.Comment
-
I read somewhere this morning that they will be out before they are 18Originally posted by DaveB View PostRule Number 1 - Assuming that you have a valid contract in place always try to get your poo onto your timesheet, provided that the timesheet is valid for your current contract and covers the period of time that you are billing for.
I preferred version 1!Comment
-
That's what the papers were saying last year too. That, regardless of the sentence, they'll have new names, jobs, a bank account balance and somewhere to live by their 18th birthdays.Originally posted by TonyEnglish View PostMy all-time favourite Dilbert cartoon, this is: BTW, a Dumpster is a brand of skip, I think.Comment
Comment