But imagine waking up in hospital alone having failed to kill yourself then being arrested charged and prosecuted for the death of your life partner who had chosen his death freely
"There was sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction for the offences of murder and manslaughter and it was in the public interest to prosecute."
are they actually saying 'we thought it would be an easy win so we went for it' ?
They seem to have suggested that her husband couldn't have taken the drugs himself and didn't have the mental capacity to agree to her giving him something and so on that basis she had duped him into dying.
The answer is simple: make assisted suicide legal. It use to happen all the time and everyone turned a blind eye. Then Dr Shipman fooked it up for everyone, the selfish bastard.
That's bollocks. The problem is that the Police and the CPS decided that they had to be seen to be doing something about it post-Shipman. So they drew up guidelines which made it impossible for even the "legit" cases to be defensible. And the courts have gone along with that approach, which is completely reprehensible.
It's another example of the decline of professionalism.
People used to trust professionals and professionals respected that trust and acted to the best of their ability.
This gave professionals an independence of thought, voice and action that the authoritarian elite didn't like. So they have replaced professional judgement with box ticking, which has inevitably led to disasters all over the place with innocent people being pilloried because they made sensible decisions but filled out the form wrong, and blameworthy villains escaping because they ticked the right boxes
Isn't the role of the trial to establish exactly what the facts are? The post acquittal assumption that the facts which led to acquittal were firmly established prior to trial is always something which makes people jump up and shout "how on earth was this in the public interest, it was obvious she wasn't guilty, she was acquitted!"
0
0
The jury unanimously acquitted
But imagine waking up in hospital alone having failed to kill yourself then being arrested charged and prosecuted for the death of your life partner who had chosen his death freely
fookers
0
0
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-49753240
"There was sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction for the offences of murder and manslaughter and it was in the public interest to prosecute."
are they actually saying 'we thought it would be an easy win so we went for it' ?
0
0
Absolute aunts
0
0
I hope the decision maker goes out nasty
0
0
They seem to have suggested that her husband couldn't have taken the drugs himself and didn't have the mental capacity to agree to her giving him something and so on that basis she had duped him into dying.
0
0
The answer is simple: make assisted suicide legal. It use to happen all the time and everyone turned a blind eye. Then Dr Shipman fooked it up for everyone, the selfish bastard.
0
0
I think part of the problem is religious diversity. I want my fate decided by a rational atheist pls.
0
0
That's bollocks. The problem is that the Police and the CPS decided that they had to be seen to be doing something about it post-Shipman. So they drew up guidelines which made it impossible for even the "legit" cases to be defensible. And the courts have gone along with that approach, which is completely reprehensible.
0
0
It isn't. Rational people can be circumspect about such cases. Religious people cannot.
0
0
It's another example of the decline of professionalism.
People used to trust professionals and professionals respected that trust and acted to the best of their ability.
This gave professionals an independence of thought, voice and action that the authoritarian elite didn't like. So they have replaced professional judgement with box ticking, which has inevitably led to disasters all over the place with innocent people being pilloried because they made sensible decisions but filled out the form wrong, and blameworthy villains escaping because they ticked the right boxes
0
0
... acted to the best of their ability and in the interests of their clients and the wider community.
0
0
Isn't the role of the trial to establish exactly what the facts are? The post acquittal assumption that the facts which led to acquittal were firmly established prior to trial is always something which makes people jump up and shout "how on earth was this in the public interest, it was obvious she wasn't guilty, she was acquitted!"
Join the discussion