Quote:
|
Originally Posted by paulyoung666
yep here we go again , scum supported by ppl who know they are scum who if they have a clever enough lawyer get away with being scum because their brief comes up with *****e like ' well at least the poor b@stard who was terrorised wont have to stand up in court ' , real big of them and the brief wasnt it , i know where you are coming from but the crap they spout p!sses me off summat rotten , i wonder how some defence lawyers sleep at night , it must take some heavy duty sedatives in my opinion  |
And how precisely do you sleep at night? You're the one happy to destroy the legal system in this country just to satisfy your own petty sensibilities of right and wrong. Or do you have some crystal ball that magically allows you to determine guilt and innocence with 100% accuracy?
And frankly, what is the point of threads such as these? I normally avoid posting to them for very good reasons, but your ill-informed rhetoric was just too much to bear. I`m sorry, but threads such as these strike me as little more than the hand-wringing of middle England. I find them symptomatic of this bizarre notion we have these days that people should latch onto any communal grief they can find.
My honest answer, these threads are nothing more than a d*ck waving exercise to see who can consume as much as possible of the communal grief pie. I agree that a case such as this is unfortnate, and the person involved should not have been put through this ordeal. However, it is disrespectful of this pensioner for the "string 'em up" brigade to use cases such as these in this manner. Sure, it pushes all the right "emotional" buttons, and I guess at the end of the day as long as you have this angle covered then reason is redundant.
I`m not going to post to this thread again. I had zero interest in posting with regard to the inital discussion, but crazy talk such as yours shouldn`t pass without a rebuttal.