ChatterBank0 min ago
He Might Not Have Done It? Right Oh!
https:/
He was already on bail for assault and threatening to kill her! Well I'll go to the foot of our stairs. I hope the apologists are having a little iternal review.
Why was he on bail? Why wasn't the scum in the slammer? I think we know, once again someone dies because we are petrified of offending muslims. Madness.
Answers
Naomi - // The police seem to think he's guilty too. Better have a word with them, andy-hughes. //
OK - Let's save time, and imagine the conversation shall we?
"Hello police? I gather you think that a man you have arrested, but not charged, convicted, or sentenced, is guilty, is that right?"
"Yes, but we don't know that he is, because he hasn't been charged, tried, or convicted yet, so our thoughts are worth about as much as a paper clip'."
"Thanks police."
"You're welcome."
That was easy wasn't it Naomi?
Anything else you want to waste our time with, while you are here?
BHG - // Andy is simply pointing out that, in this country, you are innocent until PROVED guilty and long may it remain so. I strongly suspect he WILL be proved guilty but he hasn't been yet. //
Thank you!
Someone else who doesn't seem to have a problem accepting that due process trumps vigilante wishful thinking on any day of the week.
No TTT, you are not 'pointing out'.
In common with your bigoted, biased, conclusion-jumping, summary justice giving, bloodthirsty vigilante cohorts, you are positively salivating at the thought that your perverse idea that all Muslims are murderers-in-waiting is about to be 'proven'.
Let's not minimise your temper, your bigotry, your self-righteousness, and your offensive responses to anyone who puts forward a reasonable argument against the worryingly violent views you share with others on here.
Naomi - // andy-hughes, the only pertinent part of your not so smart answer is 'Yes'. The police do think he's guilty. He wouldn't be in custody otherwise. //
The police don't operate on what they 'think'.
They operate on facts, and evidence.
In this case the suspect is in custody pending an investigation which will determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence to charge him, or not.
Whether they 'think' he is guilty or not is not the issue - which is probably why they never offer what they 'think' to anyone.
You have assumed what they 'think' because it chimes with what you think.
But it doesn't mean that they 'think' anything of the kind.
Like TTT, you are simply offering what suits your point of view, not the facts as they stand.
TTT - // you seem rattled Andy, calm down dear. //
Please don't flatter yourself, you couldn't 'rattle' me if you tried.
//My position is only based on form. No form no assessment. 9/11, 7/7 Bali, Madrid, Oct 7....and many more greatest hits. They don't happen I have no reason to assume that the Muslims are the nasties. //
Your position is based on predjudice, writ large, expressed often, and immune to reason.
October-November 1974 - Wave of IRA bombs in British pubs kills 28 people and wounds more than 200.
July 1982 - Two IRA bomb attacks on soldiers in London's royal parks kill 11 people and wound 50.
December 1983 - IRA bomb at Harrods department store kills six.
October 1984 - Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's cabinet narrowly escapes IRA bomb that kills five people at Brighton hotel during Conservative Party's annual conference.
February 1991 - IRA comes close to killing Prime Minister John Major and key cabinet members in a mortar attack on Downing Street. One of three mortar bombs slammed into garden behind building, exploding within 50 feet (15 metres) of the target.
April 1992 - Huge car bomb outside Baltic Exchange in London's financial district kills three people and wounds 91.
March 1993 - Bombs in two litter bins in Warrington kill two boys aged three and 12.
Do you hate all catholic irish?
I'm using the known facts to guide my direction of investigation, that's what plod does. They start with a theory and modify it as facts become available. I'm saying I strongly suspect this guy is a muslim and that he merdered the victim. What is your theory? How would you proceed if you were investigating this crime?
TTT - // I'm using the known facts to guide my direction of investigation, that's what plod does. //
Your 'direction of investigation'????
I think you have delusions of grandeur.
You are convicting and condeming a man based on his imagined religion, with no facts or evidence whatsoever.
You wouldn't know what an 'investigation' was if it jumped up and bit you!!!
You have made me laugh out loud.
// What is your theory? //
I don't have one. I am waiting for due process to take its course, and I will accept its findings and judgement.
// How would you proceed if you were investigating this crime? //
I wouldn't, because I'm not.
Which is just as well, because I have no facts or evidence whatsoever to go on.
Neither do you - but only one of us has the man guilty and through the trap door.