News1 min ago
Why Has It Took So Long To Get The Alleged Killer Of Pc Blakelock To Stand Trial?
26 Answers
http://
http://
/// Members of the gang that attacked Pc Keith Blakelock have been paid by the police and granted immunity in return for giving evidence against the man accused of his murder, the Old Bailey was told on Monday. ///
This is disgusting, what would have been said if some of the gang who killed Stephen Lawrence had been paid and also granted immunity in return for giving evidence against the pair who were later convicted of his murder?
http://
/// Members of the gang that attacked Pc Keith Blakelock have been paid by the police and granted immunity in return for giving evidence against the man accused of his murder, the Old Bailey was told on Monday. ///
This is disgusting, what would have been said if some of the gang who killed Stephen Lawrence had been paid and also granted immunity in return for giving evidence against the pair who were later convicted of his murder?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Perhaps people would say that "this one murder has taken up enough time, what with an inquiry, not to mention the huge costs in resources and police time".
Some would even ask whether the accused could even get a fair trial, seeing as it's now nearly 30 years since the murder.
But other than that, it seems incredible that the police would pay witnesses. I've never heard of that before.
Being given immunity I can understand, but being paid?
How does that even work?
Some would even ask whether the accused could even get a fair trial, seeing as it's now nearly 30 years since the murder.
But other than that, it seems incredible that the police would pay witnesses. I've never heard of that before.
Being given immunity I can understand, but being paid?
How does that even work?
sp1814
/// Perhaps people would say that "this one murder has taken up enough time, what with an inquiry, not to mention the huge costs in resources and police time". ///
And the same might be said regarding the Stephen Lawrence case, what's the difference?
/// Some would even ask whether the accused could even get a fair trial, seeing as it's now nearly 30 years since the murder. ///
Ditto the Stephen Lawrence murder 21 years ago.
/// Being given immunity I can understand, but being paid? ///
What would be your slant on that if some of the killers of Stephen Lawrence had been given the same?
/// Perhaps people would say that "this one murder has taken up enough time, what with an inquiry, not to mention the huge costs in resources and police time". ///
And the same might be said regarding the Stephen Lawrence case, what's the difference?
/// Some would even ask whether the accused could even get a fair trial, seeing as it's now nearly 30 years since the murder. ///
Ditto the Stephen Lawrence murder 21 years ago.
/// Being given immunity I can understand, but being paid? ///
What would be your slant on that if some of the killers of Stephen Lawrence had been given the same?
AOG
That is exactly what you said about the Stephen Lawrence case.
However, that's not my position.
Regarding the question of immunity...it all depends on how much evidence the CPS have against those who could possibly be charged. If, say, there were five suspects, and one was willing to give evidence against the other four, making it a water-tight case, then I would lean towards granting immunity from prosecution.
However, if there was a 80/20 chance of convicting them all, then I'd probably take the risk.
Difficult to say though, unless you were in that position.
A little bit too 'Sophie's Choice'.
That is exactly what you said about the Stephen Lawrence case.
However, that's not my position.
Regarding the question of immunity...it all depends on how much evidence the CPS have against those who could possibly be charged. If, say, there were five suspects, and one was willing to give evidence against the other four, making it a water-tight case, then I would lean towards granting immunity from prosecution.
However, if there was a 80/20 chance of convicting them all, then I'd probably take the risk.
Difficult to say though, unless you were in that position.
A little bit too 'Sophie's Choice'.
AOG
Would you agree with this statement in the Keith Blakelock case:
"this one murder has taken up enough time, what with an inquiry, not to mention the huge costs in resources and police time".
And this:
Some would even ask whether the accused could even get a fair trial, seeing as it's now nearly 30 years since the murder.
Seeing as you said the same for Stephen Lawrence?
Would you agree with this statement in the Keith Blakelock case:
"this one murder has taken up enough time, what with an inquiry, not to mention the huge costs in resources and police time".
And this:
Some would even ask whether the accused could even get a fair trial, seeing as it's now nearly 30 years since the murder.
Seeing as you said the same for Stephen Lawrence?
as Gromit says - because the police spent their time framing Winston Silcott, which saved them the effort of going out and finding the real killer (somewhat disrespectful to Blakelock's memory to leave his murderer loose, I would have thought).
Anyway, now, 30 years later, they're trying again. You might think that the Roache and DLT trials had shown how hard it is to make these historic charges stick, but the police will probably come up with something.
Anyway, now, 30 years later, they're trying again. You might think that the Roache and DLT trials had shown how hard it is to make these historic charges stick, but the police will probably come up with something.
I remember the picture of Winston Silcott ( a very unflattering one used , of course ) prominently splashed across the front of a newspaper ( cant remember which newspaper ) at the time ; with some not very nice comments .
When it turned out that he had not committed the murder , i was waiting to see a equally prominent piece on the front page to that effect .
But that's not what sells newspapers
Aaah , how young and naive i was then .
When it turned out that he had not committed the murder , i was waiting to see a equally prominent piece on the front page to that effect .
But that's not what sells newspapers
Aaah , how young and naive i was then .
AOG
So...would you say the same about this case?
After all, you said earlier that "the same might be said regarding the Stephen Lawrence case, what's the difference".
So would you agree that in this case, this one murder has taken up enough time, what with an inquiry, not to mention the huge costs in resources and police time?
...or not?
I'd be interested to hear what you think the differences are in the case.
So...would you say the same about this case?
After all, you said earlier that "the same might be said regarding the Stephen Lawrence case, what's the difference".
So would you agree that in this case, this one murder has taken up enough time, what with an inquiry, not to mention the huge costs in resources and police time?
...or not?
I'd be interested to hear what you think the differences are in the case.
THECORBYLOON
/// ANOTHEOLDGIT, as soon as I seen SP's original comment, I wondered if they were related to something you had said about the Lawrence case. If I twigged that, how come you didn't? ///
Because I never said anything, I was only making a comparison between the two cases. because sp was prepared to toss the PC Blakelock into the 'long grass' because of this murder had taken up enough time with an inquiry and the huge costs in resources and police time after nearly 30 years since the murder., yet he didn't agree the same regarding the 30 year Stephen Lawrence case, which has still not seen closure even after two being sent to prison over it.
I wonder why?
/// ANOTHEOLDGIT, as soon as I seen SP's original comment, I wondered if they were related to something you had said about the Lawrence case. If I twigged that, how come you didn't? ///
Because I never said anything, I was only making a comparison between the two cases. because sp was prepared to toss the PC Blakelock into the 'long grass' because of this murder had taken up enough time with an inquiry and the huge costs in resources and police time after nearly 30 years since the murder., yet he didn't agree the same regarding the 30 year Stephen Lawrence case, which has still not seen closure even after two being sent to prison over it.
I wonder why?
AOG
No...no...no.
I was quoting from you.
See my post. I wrote, "Perhaps people would say that..."
Then I put the next bit in quotes. I was quoting directly from a couple of your Stephen Lawrence threads.
So. Seeing as you think that the Stephen Lawrence murder "has taken up enough time, what with an inquiry, not to mention the huge costs in resources and police time", and he was murdered in 1993, do feel the same about PC Keith Blakelock, who was murdered even longer ago?
No...no...no.
I was quoting from you.
See my post. I wrote, "Perhaps people would say that..."
Then I put the next bit in quotes. I was quoting directly from a couple of your Stephen Lawrence threads.
So. Seeing as you think that the Stephen Lawrence murder "has taken up enough time, what with an inquiry, not to mention the huge costs in resources and police time", and he was murdered in 1993, do feel the same about PC Keith Blakelock, who was murdered even longer ago?
I will repeat - it's not my view that the murder of PC Blakelock "has taken up enough time, what with an inquiry, not to mention the huge costs in resources and police time". That's what YOU said about the Stephen Lawrence case.
Basically, I was seeing whether you would be consistent.
I don't think you have been.
Basically, I was seeing whether you would be consistent.
I don't think you have been.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.