Leaderboard

I was concerned after my first London Coins experience jn September as a single £3000 max bid went precisely for that - but in this weekend’s December auction my two bids hammered at about half my maximum. 😊

the jurors must have had a lot more information given to them than a 20 minute show could present. Either the jurors all of them or the majority must have believed the contrary to your opinion. If he gets to an appeal maybe that may change but to have grounds for an appeal some new evidence must need to be provided or the court of appeals will throw it out.

yes they must have done so with ALL the evidence and the majority verdict or all must have agreed so somewhere in this the MAJORITY of 12 at least did as they felt was correct ..

I answer to myself in respect to my opinions . I would guess most of the attitudes I have dont register with the majority but I have never really much felt the need to answer to my personal philosophy.

That's nothing to do with the police. If his defence barrister proposed that he "lost control on a bend" during the trial, it would be up to a jury whether they believed that or not - in this case they obviously didn't. Juries can make the wrong decision sometimes, but that's the justice system we have.

It's resumed now.

it is I think nothing to do with bleeding heart liberalism. If he lost control how would it be if you had been driving your car innocently around that bend . I think the ruling would have looked at the loss of control as a positive affirmation of the the issue. He lost control over a skill that normally comes as second nature because he is not trained in fast pursuit. The judgment will be based on the driving being out of control and a preemptive judgment based on irrational action that could have caused harm to life. My "liberalism" is based on a premise that I wish all people walking down a road or driving on it should have the freedom to feel "reasonable" safety when they are going to pick up the children, or going to buy a paper, or walking the dog. I am not in any way agreeing with the actions of the criminals. But he also is judged as a criminal in charge of a pretty deadly weapon that a car is. My hope would be that the burglars would get additional charges laid on them by their actions of of "aggravated counter responses they were responsible for" sadly I dont think the law exists in this cross over point it sees two events and has to judge the two . I do not think it liberal to expect the penalty for theft to be any more than the law decides . I also do not think it right to decrease the penalty for dangerous driving and bodily harm. Even if unintended in the "loss of control" on the bend ....he could have killed you or a child or an old lady (without a gun) because he simply is responding with adrenaline driving the primitive response. Laws are made to subliminally impose on the primitive brain the need for cautious response and as society evolves over time laws eventually control our actions to make us all safer .

but in the end we still have to rely upon the servants of the law to seek redress. As instinctive as it is, so are many crimes, he made the choice and he has been charged with an attempt to cause bodily harm. If I were the magistrate I would have to direct the case up to the crown prosecution service. Of course both are wrong scenarios and hence they must be looked at as two criminal actions. We do have a right to protect property but the right has its limitations. The handbook is that we all know that protecting oneself or family is to put up defence to hinder the assailants progress. I am quite serious tiny incursions progress towards larger and more serious incursions until there is limited order. I am sorry if you do not agree there is little I can do about that, hopefully if you feel strong enough you will contribute to is legal costs.

but you're advocating anarchy, the freedom of the individual to respond outside the law. We don't live in a theocracy an eye for an eye and even in those systems there still has to be due process (no matter how skewed). if each person is allowed to take such action for things that rightly or wrongly they feel the right to pass judgement on then no one would be able to live with a sense of freedom. In this case there is , of course, condemnation of the thieves but what of the next case perhaps someone doesn't like someones lifestyle, or race, or philosophy. The Law stamps on such cases in order to keep a check on behaviours that can easily spill in to general life. I dont think it is a case that the thieves deserve any less harsh a treatment under the law. But the home owner is also a criminal in his actions. Property is just not valued and neither should it be beyond a defense in the house to protect. To think where' s my keys? where's my car? let's run them down..... is three thinking steps forethought with malicious intent. sadly or otherwise to prevent anarchy that is how law works. I know I personally would not feel very safe in a system that works allowing someone that freedom.

I have mine down as obverse 5 too Larry.