The unofficial AFC Rushden & Diamonds messageboard
https://www.afcdiamondsforum.uk/
Diamondsforever wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/mers ... 554011.stm
These 2 should never have been released in the first place IMO, this whole situation could have been avoided had they actually served a sentence that fitted the crime.
Which is completely unethical by that shitrag of a paper. I would not be surprised to see them up in front of a judge for contempt at some point as that easily passes the test of creating 'a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the case'. And if they are hauled in front of said judge then it will only serve them right.woody wrote:MIRROR alleges......................
A report in the Sunday Mirror claims Venables was returned to jail "on suspicion of child porn offences".
wewantourdarbyback wrote:Which is completely unethical by that shitrag of a paper. I would not be surprised to see them up in front of a judge for contempt at some point as that easily passes the test of creating 'a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the case'. And if they are hauled in front of said judge then it will only serve them right.woody wrote:MIRROR alleges......................
A report in the Sunday Mirror claims Venables was returned to jail "on suspicion of child porn offences".
The right to be innocent until proven guilty is one of the most important rights we have in this country. Until he is charged with anything no one has the right to judge anyone guilty because of past crimes. If we do, we might as well allow lynch mobs.
On THIS occasion - I must agree!rudolph_hucker wrote:wewantourdarbyback wrote:Which is completely unethical by that shitrag of a paper. I would not be surprised to see them up in front of a judge for contempt at some point as that easily passes the test of creating 'a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the case'. And if they are hauled in front of said judge then it will only serve them right.woody wrote:MIRROR alleges......................
A report in the Sunday Mirror claims Venables was returned to jail "on suspicion of child porn offences".
The right to be innocent until proven guilty is one of the most important rights we have in this country. Until he is charged with anything no one has the right to judge anyone guilty because of past crimes. If we do, we might as well allow lynch mobs.
Top post
Me neither..............Read the Internet versionsrudolph_hucker wrote:I didn't buy one.
WELL SAID................. CHIP WRAPPINGS :lol: :lol: :lol:Diamondsforever wrote:I can't remember the last time I actually paid money for a newspaper 8-)
You're right that its a very important right, but this peice of scum imo has NO RIGHTS. He MURDERED a 2 year old child. Regardless of his age at the time, coupled with the fact he's BACK in prision, regardless of whatever he's done, thats enough for me to say he doesn't deserve to have any rights.wewantourdarbyback wrote:guilty is one of the most important rights we have in this country. Until he is charged with anything no one has the right to judge anyone guilty because of past crimes. If we do, we might as well allow lynch mobs.
Whilst I agreed with D4E, RH & WWODB............... you make a very good case. - BUT if this wasn't a case concerning a two year old child, would you still think the same?mattreddan wrote:You're right that its a very important right, but this peice of scum imo has NO RIGHTS. He MURDERED a 2 year old child. Regardless of his age at the time, coupled with the fact he's BACK in prision, regardless of whatever he's done, thats enough for me to say he doesn't deserve to have any rights.wewantourdarbyback wrote:guilty is one of the most important rights we have in this country. Until he is charged with anything no one has the right to judge anyone guilty because of past crimes. If we do, we might as well allow lynch mobs.