• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Stokes Arrested

Scaly piscine

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Why do people read chip paper and bird cage carpet for opinions anyway?

Ooh get me a journalist from the slimiest dankest gutter from the gutter press to tell me what to think. They'll be unbiased, sensible and report all the facts won't they?
 
zaremba

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
StephenZA said:
Gets it wrong? If you are talking the Pistorius case then she got nothing wrong and the system worked perfectly.... whatever the rabid internet fanatics think.
Click to expand...
StephenZA said:
She quite clearly stated in her initial finding that she had followed guidance given to judges to go with the lesser 'charge' when there was clear uncertainty. When the legal professionals where talking about it it was a very close opinion that could have gone either way. Don't forget the prosecution decided to go for a premeditated murder argument, which was never proven, rather than negligent murder with a firearm, which was what he eventually was found guilty of. She also quite clearly allowed the state leave to appeal due to her ruling (which she did not have to do), letting the higher court decide if she was right or wrong. So did the system work, yes clearly it did. And yes she followed guidance and made the correct legal decision.
Click to expand...
With respect, she really didn't make the correct legal decision. She got the law wrong - making fundamental errors - as the appeal court explained. The fact that she gave leave to appeal doesn't change that.

I agree with your broader point that the system ultimately worked, though, because the appeal court was able to put right that which she had got wrong.
 
StephenZA

StephenZA

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
zaremba said:
With respect, she really didn't make the correct legal decision. She got the law wrong - making fundamental errors - as the appeal court explained. The fact that she gave leave to appeal doesn't change that.

I agree with your broader point that the system ultimately worked, though, because the appeal court was able to put right that which she had got wrong.
Click to expand...
I am not a legal expert to fully understand the nuances of that judgement. My understanding and a quick read of that judgement, is the state initially argued premediated murder for Reeva (even though technically SA does not have premeditation), this was never proven. The judge then had to decide if he had acted in self-defence, in a reasonable manner. She found he had not, but she would not infer that he foresaw that he would kill somebody. Hence her judgement. The appeal court consider extra circumstancial evidence that she had disregarded and changed the conviction to that he could forsee the consequence of his action.

So every time an appeal overturns a ruling they are saying that the judge got it 'wrong', so from that basis sure, fine. But it was a close run thing and I have read articles on both sides where some agree with her orginal judgement and some agree with the appeal. It was not clear cut. There have been a number of similar cases, not high profile, where people have mistakenly killed family in the belief it was an intruder and not followed the correct 'protocol' and have been found guilt of culpable homicide not murder. She erred on the side of the defendant as she is advised to do, so no I do not codemn her actions as 'wrong' considering everything.

But in the end the court system worked and that is the important issue.
 
sledger

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
Scaly piscine said:
Why do people read chip paper and bird cage carpet for opinions anyway?

Ooh get me a journalist from the slimiest dankest gutter from the gutter press to tell me what to think. They'll be unbiased, sensible and report all the facts won't they?
Click to expand...
The quoted article was written by Nasser Hussain.

PS. You're a knob.
 
flibbertyjibber

flibbertyjibber

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Scaly piscine said:
Why do people read chip paper and bird cage carpet for opinions anyway?

Ooh get me a journalist from the slimiest dankest gutter from the gutter press to tell me what to think. They'll be unbiased, sensible and report all the facts won't they?
Click to expand...
Like you are always giving a fair balanced unbiased opinion.
 
H

Hennybogan

U19 12th Man
He likely will play, I hope so as a victory would be a bit hollow if he didn't play. Still he needs a good cuff over the ear for what he did, losing the plot to x degrees. I'd be betting on him being called a fag hag.
 
sledger

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
Scaly piscine said:
Still a hell of a lot more informed and unbiased than anything the Daily Heil can come up with.
Click to expand...
The author be damned! Probably knows nothing about cricket!

And since you've got me on ignore, I'm going to take the opportunity to call you a **** again.

****.
 
Lillian Thomson

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
sledger said:
The author be damned! Probably knows nothing about cricket!

And since you've got me on ignore, I'm going to take the opportunity to call you a **** again.

****.
Click to expand...
How does the ignore feature work? Assuming I’m not on ignore will the ignorer see this post if I quote it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top