Manslaughter Decision

[faraway saint]

2 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

I expect the book deal and film adaptation contracts are all but signed. This has been played to the galleries for much more than one reason.

His barrister, while being condescending to many people, was going on about film right this morning on BBC news.

Didn't catch it all so can't be more precise.

[Callum Gilhooley]

Body swerve? Would that be when I said she should be happy?
Hardly "sticking a mike in her face".................Speaking to the Daily Mail newspaper while waiting for his release, Claire Blackman said: "I haven't slept all week. I feel like a child waiting for Christmas.
 

You said his wife had "no shame " I believe she has every right to be happy & excited to have her husband home and need not feel any shame for that .

ok so it was a newspaper reporter who asked the question rather than TV / Radio but still the same for me .

Perhaps you might like to clarify , are you if the opinion that ALL family members of criminals are to exhibit shame or is it just wives ? Or just this wife ?

[Hoof Hearted]

26 minutes ago, Callum Gilhooley said:

Nice body swerve by both of you . My comment had nothing to do with what happened weeks ago or what his barrister said nor indeed any comment on his crime . I made a direct response to Faraway's comment and I stick by it . Someone shoves a Mike in her face at a very emotional time and asks how she feels , what do you want her to say ?

I would ask her "why the long face"? she looks like a feckin horse.

[faraway saint]

Just now, Callum Gilhooley said:

 

You said his wife had "no shame " I believe she has every right to be happy & excited to have her husband home and need not feel any shame for that .

ok so it was a newspaper reporter who asked the question rather than TV / Radio but still the same for me .

Perhaps you might like to clarify , are you if the opinion that ALL family members of criminals are to exhibit shame or is it just wives ? Or just this wife ?

 

What a strange statement?

She is entitled to be as happy as she chooses, being so public shows, IMO, she has no shame in her husband shooting a defenceless man. (The real issue here )

You focus on her rights as a wife, which I have not denied, and ignore her willingness to be as public, that's you're prerogative.  

[Callum Gilhooley]

What a strange statement?
She is entitled to be as happy as she chooses, being so public shows, IMO, she has no shame in her husband shooting a defenceless man. (The real issue here )
You focus on her rights as a wife, which I have not denied, and ignore her willingness to be as public, that's you're prerogative.  

You said she had no shame . That was the quote I directly responded to . It is there clearly for everyone to see .
Again , I don't think she has done anything to warrant shame .
You do , we'll have to agree to disagree

[Ayrshire Saints]

 

32 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

His barrister, while being condescending to many people, was going on about film right this morning on BBC news.

Didn't catch it all so can't be more precise.

Condescending didn't even come close to describing the smug c**t. The BBC breakfast interviewer was clearly dismayed as every serious question about the case was met with talk of film rights, who would be playing who, book deals and when challenged it was a case of  "they deserve it". Whether the conviction and sentence were right or wrong, blatant profiteering from it is an utter disgrace.

[Drew]

53 minutes ago, Callum Gilhooley said:

 

So the wife is happy to have her husband back and you think that is wrong ?
Regardless of what he did, I don't think the wife has said anything to merit your scorn .

Disagree.

She could easily have kept things private and low key. That would have been the appropriate thing to do.

I daresay, however, that the tawdry tabloids have been competing for her exclusive 'tell all' story, and will pay handsomely for this.

Sometimes discretion is the order of the day.

[Drew]

Film rights? Seriously?

Dearie me.

[Callum Gilhooley]

Disagree.
She could easily have kept things private and low key. That would have been the appropriate thing to do.
I daresay, however, that the tawdry tabloids have been competing for her exclusive 'tell all' story, and will pay handsomely for this.
Sometimes discretion is the order of the day.

That what rational debate is all about . You have one opinion & I have another, I simply don't believe that family members of Criminals should be made to feel shame for their feelings on a loved one being freed .

[Drew]

6 minutes ago, Callum Gilhooley said:

 

That what rational debate is all about . You have one opinion & I have another, I simply don't believe that family members of Criminals should be made to feel shame for their feelings on a loved one being freed .

Nor do I, but should they so blatantly celebrate it in such sensitive circumstances (and times in general)?

Bottom line is that this is a very controversial case, and feelings run high on all sides. In such circumstances, sometimes people need fo learn to keep a lid on things, though, for the greater good. 

Perception is everything, and some will, with a degree of justification in my opinion, regard this as a case of shabby, flag waving triumphalism. As such, it is potentially inflammatory, and that helps absolutely no-one in our incendiary times.

Edited April 28, 2017 by Drew

[faraway saint]

34 minutes ago, Ayrshire Saints said:

 

Condescending didn't even come close to describing the smug c**t. The BBC breakfast interviewer was clearly dismayed as every serious question about the case was met with talk of film rights, who would be playing who, book deals and when challenged it was a case of  "they deserve it". Whether the conviction and sentence were right or wrong, blatant profiteering from it is an utter disgrace.

If someone can post this "embarrassment" of an interview please do.

I cannie.

This is the best I can do.............Speaking to the BBC, his barrister, Jonathan Goldberg QC, claimed he had been in Hollywood to discuss a movie deal, suggesting that Kate Winslet, Tom Hardy and Al Pacino were being considered to play the Blackmans and him.

Edited April 28, 2017 by faraway saint

[Drew]

6 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

If someone can post this "embarrassment" of an interview please do.

I cannie.

This is the best I can do.............Speaking to the BBC, his barrister, Jonathan Goldberg QC, claimed he had been in Hollywood to discuss a movie deal, suggesting that Kate Winslet, Tom Hardy and Al Pacino were being considered to play the Blackmans and him.

What an arsehole.

He sounds like a self-publicist who is happy to put all ethical considerations to one side in the interests of self gain. The Law Society should be toeing his arse for that.

[faraway saint]

2 hours ago, Drew said:

What an arsehole.

He sounds like a self-publicist who is happy to put all ethical considerations to one side in the interests of self gain. The Law Society should be toeing his arse for that.

Oh, the printed word does his performance no justice. (See what I did there)

As Ayrshire Saint said, his smugness, combined with his dismissive comments about ANYBODY who didn't see this soldier as some sort of cult hero were annoying, to say the least.

Edited April 28, 2017 by faraway saint

[oaksoft]

http://news.sky.com/story/marine-a-the-movie-alexander-blackman-in-talks-with-hollywood-to-make-film-of-his-life-10853914

[faraway saint]

7 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

http://news.sky.com/story/marine-a-the-movie-alexander-blackman-in-talks-with-hollywood-to-make-film-of-his-life-10853914

Nowhere nearly as good as his performance on BBC.

[StanleySaint]

The barrister also claimed after what I thought was a reasonable question about how all this would be perceived by the public at large that the presenter was being paid to ask controversial questions, this was BBC breakfast not bloody Newsnight, the barrister did come across as a right arsehole.

[saintnextlifetime]

On 29/03/2017 at 11:55 PM, TPAFKATS said:

I'm pretty sure Taliban etc haven't signed up to Geneva Convention anyway.
That's one of the moral high grounds that we (UK) like to take over them.

In fairness , the convention that has been broken here is actually  , the Hague Conventions . Geneva was the first in 1864 ( after the way wounded men suffered in Crimea). There was a Geneva second leg in 1906 followed by the second leg of the Hague in 1907. It was obviously difficult for most nations to avoid war crimes after this as below shows:

The Hague Conventions (of which there are two - 1899 and 1907) are considered some of the first formal statements of the laws of war and war crimes in the body of secular international law. The first convention in 1899 established "rules of war" that included prohibitions against -

• the use of poisons
• the killing of enemy combatants who have surrendered
• the looting of a towns or property by occupying forces
• the attack or bombardment of undefended towns

The treaty also protected inhabitants of occupied territories against conscription and provided protection for hospital ships. The hospital ship provisions were further enhanced and amendment by the Second Geneva Convention (1906).