0
   

Attack in London Today

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 11:25 am
Although Simon de Monfort summoned the first parliament, it was his inveterate enemy, Edward I who regularized the institution. He used it as a means of getting revenue for an army so that he could act without reliance upon or reference to the feudal levy.

Similarly, he created the institution of the jury (the members were all juré, which is to say, sworn) to re-establish the authority of his greatgrandfather's (Henry II) innovation of the Crown court. Initially, juries were called to be witnesses in mitigation on behalf of or in despite of the accused; equally, they might be called to stand surety for the behavior of the accused were he released upon conditions, rather than remanded into custody. It was only over time that the near constant strife between Crown and "overmighty Lords" lead to more and more concessions to the corporate boroughs which included widening the power and authority of juries, who now took on the duties given the Coroner ("crowner") to make findings of fact, leaving the findings of law to the King's Justices. In the long struggle between the Plantagenets and the Peerage and Baronage, one of the most effective tactics of John and Henry III was to extend the personal rights demanded by the Baronage in Magna Carta to the Commons. Magna Carta is more concerned with rights in property and indemnifying the corporate boroughs than with personal rights, but the wiley William the Marshall, first Lord Protector of England, in the minority of Henry III, saw the practical value of extending personal rights to the Commons to enlist their support. That, combined with the resentment of the Commons at the French attempt to take the English throne, abetted by the rebel barons, assured William's eventual victory. When the de Monfort rebellion defeated Henry at Lewes, de Montfort called the first Parliament, but he only included "loyal" burghers. Edward had learned well the lessons of William the Marshall and his father, and he called a Parliament with broad representation of the Commons, and extended the right of "trial by a jury of peers" to them, and effectively seized the power his greatgrandfather had sought.

The history of both jurisprudence and parliamentary government in England is the story of Crown versus Peerage, and the appeals from both sides for the support of the Commons. Small wonder that juries rose to such power and prominence when even Kings went begging for armies and supplies.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 08:09 pm
nimh wrote:
McTag wrote:
nimh wrote:
Does Britain have jury trials?


A joke I suppose? Rolling Eyes

Nope, just ignorance. We dont have jury trials, kinda frown on them. Think most of continental Europe doesnt have jury trials. I just didnt know about Britain.


I think France still has juries in its criminal trials. Possibly one of the few European jurisdictions to do so.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2005 12:10 am
goodfielder wrote:

I think France still has juries in its criminal trials. Possibly one of the few European jurisdictions to do so.


Kind of: professional judges with additional lay judges (we've got a similar system in Germany, too, but only with two lay judges and not a real jury [although the chambers for severe crimes are still called so: 'Schwurgerichtskammer']).

Quote:
Crimes are tried by the Cours d'Assises composed of three judges and a jury of nine citizens drawn by lot from a list of names. The judges and jury together decide whe-ther the accused is innocent or guilty and on the sentence to be passed. However, for certain particularly 'sensitive' cases, e.g. those concerning terrorist crimes, there are special Cours d'Assises composed of seven judges sitting without a jury.
Source
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2005 12:34 am
As a side issue, in this country when a citizen is called up for jury service (there are few exemptions) they have a most unpleasant time, spending little of their time in an actual trial, waiting around with nothing to do, and given next to no information. Very poor.
You have to be very dedicated to your duties as a citizen to do the job properly. Some aren't.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2005 01:01 am
Quote:
Officer's complaint about shooting inquiry rejected

By Geneviève Roberts
Published: 26 August 2005

A firearms officer who complained about the investigation into the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes has had his complaint rejected, the Independent Police Complaints Commission said last night.

The officer took offence to comments made by the commission's deputy chairman, John Wadham, last week, when he disclosed that Sir Ian Blair had resisted the setting up of the inquiry. He said the fledgling commission had won an "important victory" for its independence in overcoming the Met's opposition.

Sir Ian had written to the Home Office in the hours after the shooting inquiring about having an internal police rather than an IPCC inquiry, because he was concerned that secrets about anti-terrorist tactics could be made public. At the time the Met wrongly believed that officers had shot dead a suicide bomber.

Mr Wadham said: "The Metropolitan Police Service initially resisted us taking on the investigation but we overcame that. It was an important victory for our independence. This dispute has caused delay in us taking over the investigation but we have worked hard to recover the lost ground."

Last night, a spokeswoman from the IPCC said a complaint was received the following day from a Metropolitan Police officer - reportedly a firearms officer - objecting to the comments. The complaint was rejected on 24 August by the chairman of the IPCC, Nick Hardwick, and not deemed to undermine the continuing independent investigation into the incident.

The IPCC spokeswoman said: "Nick Hardwick has considered the complaint made about the comments that John Wadham made. People are free to criticise and disagree with us but this is not a conduct matter and therefore no further action will be taken."

As news of the complaint emerged, senior Brazilian officials examining Me de Menezes' death were preparing to return home after completing their four-day fact-finding mission in London. Yesterday morning the delegation met the Southwark coroner, John Sampson, who will ultimately hold the inquest into the death of the innocent Brazilian.

Meanwhile, an eye-witness revealed that officers fired at Mr de Menezes for over 30 seconds at three-second intervals when they killed him at Stockwell Tube station on 22 July.

According to The Guardian Sue Thomason, a journalist, ran for her life, fearing that the police officers were terrorists who had opened fire on commuters.

A firearms officer who complained about the investigation into the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes has had his complaint rejected, the Independent Police Complaints Commission said last night.

The officer took offence to comments made by the commission's deputy chairman, John Wadham, last week, when he disclosed that Sir Ian Blair had resisted the setting up of the inquiry. He said the fledgling commission had won an "important victory" for its independence in overcoming the Met's opposition.

Sir Ian had written to the Home Office in the hours after the shooting inquiring about having an internal police rather than an IPCC inquiry, because he was concerned that secrets about anti-terrorist tactics could be made public. At the time the Met wrongly believed that officers had shot dead a suicide bomber.

Mr Wadham said: "The Metropolitan Police Service initially resisted us taking on the investigation but we overcame that. It was an important victory for our independence. This dispute has caused delay in us taking over the investigation but we have worked hard to recover the lost ground."

Last night, a spokeswoman from the IPCC said a complaint was received the following day from a Metropolitan Police officer - reportedly a firearms officer - objecting to the comments. The complaint was rejected on 24 August by the chairman of the IPCC, Nick Hardwick, and not deemed to undermine the continuing independent investigation into the incident.
The IPCC spokeswoman said: "Nick Hardwick has considered the complaint made about the comments that John Wadham made. People are free to criticise and disagree with us but this is not a conduct matter and therefore no further action will be taken."

As news of the complaint emerged, senior Brazilian officials examining Me de Menezes' death were preparing to return home after completing their four-day fact-finding mission in London. Yesterday morning the delegation met the Southwark coroner, John Sampson, who will ultimately hold the inquest into the death of the innocent Brazilian.

Meanwhile, an eye-witness revealed that officers fired at Mr de Menezes for over 30 seconds at three-second intervals when they killed him at Stockwell Tube station on 22 July.

According to The Guardian Sue Thomason, a journalist, ran for her life, fearing that the police officers were terrorists who had opened fire on commuters.
Source
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2005 02:41 am
Hope this entire tragedy doesn't end up in Met-IPECC sidebar.

Thanks for the history, Set. Very informative.

Unfortunately, I tend to see it the way McTag does.

BUT

Quote:
Meanwhile, an eye-witness revealed that officers fired at Mr de Menezes for over 30 seconds at three-second intervals when they killed him at Stockwell Tube station on 22 July.

According to The Guardian Sue Thomason, a journalist, ran for her life, fearing that the police officers were terrorists who had opened fire on commuters.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2005 05:58 am
You said that twice Walter
You said that twice Walter

(This has been a public service announcement from McTag, the watchful eye that never sleeps) :wink:
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2005 06:37 am
McTag wrote:
As a side issue, in this country when a citizen is called up for jury service (there are few exemptions) they have a most unpleasant time, spending little of their time in an actual trial, waiting around with nothing to do, and given next to no information. Very poor.
You have to be very dedicated to your duties as a citizen to do the job properly. Some aren't.


There is little or no jury selection in Britain, or so I am told by an American businessman who has some experience with the legal system over there.

In America, the jury is the end result of endless sifting, supposedly designed to ensure an completely impartial jury. Of course, both sides are really trying to get jury members they perceive as likely to favor their side. In high profile cases, as we have seen, it could take weeks-although in most cases it is not nearly so long.

In Britain, apparently the jury consists of the next 12 members of the jury pool. The two sides don't even question them, apparently. It's just a case of seating the next 12 jurors waiting in line. "Jury selection", if you want to call it that, takes 5 minutes.

As the American businessman, Victor Kiam, said, "Your next door neighbor or brother-in-law could be on the jury and apparently it wouldn't make a difference".
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2005 07:16 am
Can't speak for the UK but in my jurisdiction which very closely follows English law and jurisprudence there are only three peremptory challenges allowed in jury selection.

If either counsel wants to take on a prospective juror outside of the three peremptory challenges they had better have some red hot info.

But having said that the Sheriff (who administers the courts under the direction of the Chief Justice) has to strike off the jury list certain people who are prohibited by law from sitting in the jury and also those who have good grounds to not sit.

But there have been mistrials when a juror about day three or four owns up to knowing the defendant. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2005 12:13 pm
yes yes ok

but what about the CRICKET?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2005 02:31 pm
Quote:
Inquiry into de Menezes leak begins

The police watchdog has appointed a former inspector of constabulary to carry out an independent inquiry into the leaking of highly sensitive material from the Jean Charles de Menezes investigation.

Bill Taylor, formerly Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland, will look into how documents from the Independent Police Complaints Commission's (IPCC's) inquiry found their way into the media.

He will also review the existing IPCC inquiry into the leak and decide what action is necessary against any individuals involved.

An IPCC spokeswoman said he would report to Nick Hardwick, the organisation's chairman, "as soon as possible", but she was unable to say whether this would be within weeks or months.

The announcement follows the publication of letters from the Police Federation and Metropolitan Police Federation to the Home Secretary calling for an independent inquiry into the leaks.

They demanded that someone independent of both the police and the IPCC investigate last week's disclosures, which re-ignited the controversy over the shooting of the innocent Brazilian.

Alan Gordon, vice chairman of the Police Federation, went further, saying in a letter to the Home Office that the leaks called into question the IPCC's ability to conduct investigations in a "professional and independent manner".

In a statement tonight, the watchdog said: "The IPCC announced that it had appointed Bill Taylor, formerly Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland, who is independent of the IPCC, to lead the inquiry into the leak of unauthorised material from the IPCC that was reported in the media on August 16 and on the following days.

"Mr Taylor has been asked to review the existing internal IPCC inquiry and then direct any further action he considers appropriate.

"He will make recommendations relating to any individuals involved and what steps the IPCC could take to reduce the risk of such unauthorised disclosure in future."
Source
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Aug, 2005 12:34 am
Quote:
'Third man' tells of bomb hunt ordeal

Gym card link put Somali in danger during police shooting

Ian Cobain and Vikram Dodd
Tuesday August 30, 2005
The Guardian


A man being sought by the police team which accidentally shot dead Jean Charles de Menezes has spoken for the first time to the Guardian of his shock at being caught up in the search for the would-be suicide bombers.
Abdi Omar, a Somali-born bus driver, was one of two men detectives were looking for when they began following the young Brazilian from his home in south London. Mr Omar is a friend of one of the four suspects, Hussain Osman, and rents a flat above the apartment where Mr de Menezes was living.

"It could have been me who got shot that day," Mr Omar said. "I don't know what to make of all this. I don't know what I should do."

Police had been watching the block where both men lived, in Scotia Road, Tulse Hill, because they had discovered Mr Omar's gym membership card in a rucksack holding the bomb intended to blow up a tube train in Shepherd's Bush, west London.

However, Mr Omar says he had lent his membership card to Hussain Osman, a suspect since arrested in Rome and facing extradition to Britain.

He said he was friendly with Osman, an Ethiopian-born British citizen, also known as Hamdi Adus Issac, who lived in Stockwell, south London.

"I knew him from the gym, although not well, not 100%," said Mr Omar, 42. " I lent him my card. But I have no idea why it was in the rucksack."

An army surveillance specialist, on attachment to Scotland Yard, had begun watching the flats where Mr Omar lived at 6.30am on the day after the failed attacks.

Mr Omar was living in a second-floor flat in the block, while Mr de Menezes was on the first floor. Police had decided to monitor everyone leaving through the front door.

When Mr de Menezes emerged the soldier was, according to his later statement, relieving himself, and was unsure whether he had been watching either Mr Omar or Mr Osman.

The soldier would have been issued with at least one CCTV image of the Shepherd's Bush bombing suspect. He may also have had a photograph of Mr Omar: it is understood that Mr Omar's picture was on his membership card from the South Bank Club, a £395-a-year gym in south London.

According to members of Mr Omar's family, his mother-in-law was manhandled by armed police when they raided the home of his estranged wife a few hours after the death of Mr de Menezes.

The family said three plain-clothes officers with submachine guns surrounded his wife, Aziza Hassan, the couple's 12-year-old son, and her 74-year-old mother as they emerged from their home off Harrow Road, west London.

"She suffered a heart attack, and although she is now out of hospital, she needed heart surgery," said Mr Omar. Scotland Yard would not comment, other than to confirm that a complaint was being investigated.

Questioning Ms Hassan, detectives realised her husband had left the country five days before the bombing, after telling relatives that he was making a short trip to Somalia. Apparently, this heightened their suspicions. Mr Omar denies going to Somalia but says he was abroad on July 21. "I knew nothing about what was happening until I came back."

He says he went to see the police when he returned to London two weeks ago. "They questioned me like they weren't interested. They asked me: 'Why do you think we are suspecting you?' I said: 'I don't know'. By this time they knew all about the gym card, and they told my lawyer later that they were not interested in me.

"They have damaged my life and my family. But if they ask me, I would help them."
Source
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Aug, 2005 02:11 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
yes yes ok

but what about the CRICKET?


Well done England, damn fine game - looking forward to The Oval Very Happy

For wailing and gnashing of teeth stuff go to the Aussie cafe thread Razz
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Aug, 2005 02:14 am
thanks Walter - good to keep up with it. Some sad events there.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Aug, 2005 08:14 am
Sad? More than that, I figure.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Sep, 2005 08:28 pm
Tape of London bombing "mastermind" released.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Sep, 2005 03:06 am
sumac wrote:
Sad? More than that, I figure.


I do try to avoid hyperbole sumac - well at times anyway.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2005 09:13 am
"An army surveillance specialist, on attachment to Scotland Yard, had begun watching the flats where Mr Omar lived at 6.30am on the day after the failed attacks."

Just thought I would highlight this from Walters Guardian post as it illustrates what I was saying about how British secret intelligence operate.

gf going to the Aussie therapy site
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2005 01:33 pm
hmmm....
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2005 07:25 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
"An army surveillance specialist, on attachment to Scotland Yard, had begun watching the flats where Mr Omar lived at 6.30am on the day after the failed attacks."

Just thought I would highlight this from Walters Guardian post as it illustrates what I was saying about how British secret intelligence operate.

gf going to the Aussie therapy site


If that's an Army surveillance specialist maybe they should retrain them :wink:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/29/2025 at 11:05:58