bickster Posted November 17, 2021 Author Moderator Share Posted November 17, 2021 21 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: of a Vauxhall. Ford Focus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted November 17, 2021 Moderator Share Posted November 17, 2021 5 minutes ago, bickster said: Ford Focus I'm not why I felt the need to watch it again to check - you're quite right! I suspect the sentencing laws are similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted November 17, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted November 17, 2021 44 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: If he'd survived, I wonder what he'd have been charged with? I presume there are terror based charges for making bombs and blowing them up rather than him just being charged with the destruction of a Vauxhall. How long do you sentence a failed terrorist for? Would the other prisoners on the terror wing disown him as hopeless? Would he be out in fourteen months and on the sofa with Phil and Holly? You can get 14 years for planning terror attacks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 17, 2021 Author Moderator Share Posted November 17, 2021 20 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: I suspect the sentencing laws are similar. I expect the explosive charge required to blow up a Zafira is much less though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted November 17, 2021 Share Posted November 17, 2021 1 hour ago, KentVillan said: Thanks, that’s really helpful. Going back to the original question, what is the threshold for diminished responsibility? One of my mum’s friends was stabbed to death by her son, and diminished responsibility was agreed, although family wanted a murder trial. Personally I felt he was very obviously mentally ill and had been let down by the state, but it was easy to see where the family were coming from, and difficult to fully understand the reasoning. Sorry this is going a bit off topic, but say this bomber had survived, would diminished responsibility have been a realistic approach for the defence? Diminished responsibility is where a recognised condition leaves the person unable to function properly and make decisions that a normal person would make. There's no threshold. It is a balance of probability judgement and the onus is on the defence to prove it to that standard. You need to understand the difference between "defence" and "mitigation". A defence is an argument that you are innocent. Mitigation is an admission of guilt combined with an attempt to reduce the charge and/or sentence. Diminished responsibility is mitigation. But it would have been pointless. Had he survived he would have gone to prison for life. There is no way his sentence or charges would have been reduced by any meaningful amount. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentVillan Posted November 17, 2021 Share Posted November 17, 2021 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: Diminished responsibility is where a recognised condition leaves the person unable to function properly and make decisions that a normal person would make. There's no threshold. It is a balance of probability judgement and the onus is on the defence to prove it to that standard. You need to understand the difference between "defence" and "mitigation". A defence is an argument that you are innocent. Mitigation is an admission of guilt combined with an attempt to reduce the charge and/or sentence. Diminished responsibility is mitigation. But it would have been pointless. Had he survived he would have gone to prison for life. There is no way his sentence or charges would have been reduced by any meaningful amount. Thanks, this is all useful info for the terror attack I’ve been planning Edit: but seriously, thanks, it’s so interesting to get a proper explanation of this stuff Edited November 17, 2021 by KentVillan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted November 18, 2021 Share Posted November 18, 2021 11 hours ago, KentVillan said: Edit: but seriously, thanks, it’s so interesting to get a proper explanation of this stuff The best way to explain these things are real examples that are extreme. For diminished responsibility think about a crime committed by a 30 year old who has the mental age of a 9 year old. The age of criminal responsibility in the UK is 10. We accept that a 9 year old mind is not fully formed and they should not be criminaly accountable. So how do you treat a 30 year old man with a 9 year old 's mind? You apply diminished responsibility. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 18, 2021 Author Moderator Share Posted November 18, 2021 This supposed "friend" is much closer to the truth in my opinion. Quote The interview took place at his terraced home in north Liverpool, where he lives with wife Rachel. A source close to the driver has told The Mirror that the bomber allegedly only spoke two words - “Women’s hospital” - after he was picked up for the seven minute car journey shortly before 11am on Remembrance Sunday. The source said: “He didn’t say another word all the way there. The driver was not aware of anything." Daily Record Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted November 18, 2021 Share Posted November 18, 2021 I find this hard to believe. Surely he said - Has it been busy? What time do you finish? Although I have left the house there is someone there. So please don't get any of your shady mates to burgle the place. What's this stain on the velor seat cover? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted November 18, 2021 Share Posted November 18, 2021 On 17/11/2021 at 18:41, blandy said: Well I made manufacturing drugs part of my science GCSE* and got an E. *I didn't. We know that mate, you're about 10 years too old to have taken GCSEs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 18, 2021 Moderator Share Posted November 18, 2021 7 minutes ago, Risso said: We know that mate, you're about 10 years too old to have taken GCSEs. Harsh but fair, Mart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 29, 2021 Author Moderator Share Posted December 29, 2021 The Inquest on this will open at 10am tomorrow, expected to be completed within the day. So I suppose it will be in the news again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted December 29, 2021 Share Posted December 29, 2021 1 hour ago, bickster said: The Inquest on this will open at 10am tomorrow, expected to be completed within the day. So I suppose it will be in the news again. I think it'll take more than a day, especially with all the scouse claims for PTSD within a 5 mile radius of the scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 29, 2021 Author Moderator Share Posted December 29, 2021 30 minutes ago, foreveryoung said: I think it'll take more than a day Not what I've been told to expect. It's a fairly open and shut inquest. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 30, 2021 Author Moderator Share Posted December 30, 2021 As predicted, it took an hour and a half. Interesting that the bomber "acted with murderous intent" but no mention of terrorism in the narrative verdict. I really don't think the police ever managed to work out the real motive behind the attack. When the bomb went off I was out in Liverpool City Centre with the missus, I was in our office within 20 minutes, going through our data to provide evidence to the Police (leaving the missus in town completely unaware at the time) I was contacted yesterday by GMP to inform me that the inquest was today and to make sure I was prepared for the consequences after the trial with regards to my evidence and journalists trying to get in touch We had a good number of journalists buzzing around our office at the time and for us it was easy to deal with because there's someone on site that really loves verbally abusing people when he has the moral and legal high ground. I think I might even have invented new words. The press were absolutely the vilest scum of the earth on this, they camped outside the drivers house for over a week. The man had just escaped with his life and was struggling to process what had happened but these vermin wouldn't leave him and his family alone A special mention goes out to the Daily Heil who on 2 occasions offered money to our Company Secretary for his opinion and "access" to the driver. They also asked the scummiest question when at our building - word for word - "Can you confirm that the bomber was a man dressed as a woman wearing a burkha" Lets see if they do indeed turn up today, could be some fun to be had 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts