What's the sentence gonna be?

[Cab]

repeating myself now, but no I didn't, explain how I did

and why not try to do it without being insulting and personal?

dare you

My post was:
No one said otherwise; the thing is, the guy seems to have admitted doing it. You don't hit someone over the head with a plank without the intent to kill them or, if you do, then you need to be put away in a place where you can't be so stupid ever again. So the CPS need to make damned sure they persue a murder charge.

You cut from that:
You don't hit someone over the head with a plank without the intent to kill them

Cutting the point I was making, indeed the sentence, clean in two. In your imagination I said that its murder and thats it. In reality I said its either murder or such an incredibly stupid person that an appropriate thing to do is put them away for the safety of everyone else (i.e. on the grounds that its in the greater good the CPS should push for a murder charge).

Me having to explain a point repeatedly because you're too thick to read a whole sentence before replying to it gets tiresome, really fast. But you're not that stupid, you did this intentionally to score a cheap point. Don't do it, it makes you look like what that cyclist got hit with. A plank.

 

[Tynan]

you're accusing me of being cheap when you've thrown insults into every one of your generous explanations right from the start? well done

I stand by my first post entirely, the piece I quoted stands alone and is not quoted out of context, you can't 'if' an absolute statement

you're stridently insistent that this was murder or at worse should be treated as murder, I don't agree with you, the CPS doesn't agree with you, the law of this country doesn't agree with you

whatever, really

 

[Cab]

you're accusing me of being cheap when you've thrown insults into every one of your generous explanations right from the start? well done

I threw descriptions of your rather rubbish response. And as what you've done is basically crap, they were fair.

I stand by my first post entirely, the piece I quoted stands alone and is not quoted out of context, you can't 'if' an absolute statement

Don't be so ridiculous; you cut the sentence in two at 'or'. Its a cruddy, nasty, pointless edit specifically to take the comment out of context, and you know it is.

you're stridently insistent that this was murder or at worse should be treated as murder, I don't agree with you, the CPS doesn't agree with you, the law of this country doesn't agree with you

whatever, really

You have no idea whether or not the CPS agrees with me, you have no idea whether if brought to trial for murder the charges will stand. Whether you agree, frankly, I couldn't care less. You can't even answer a whole sentence.

 

[Muddyfox]

You have no idea whether or not the CPS agrees with me, you have no idea whether if brought to trial for murder the charges will stand. .

At the risk of only quoting a small part of Cab's post ... had you of read the news link properly you would have answered your own questions

Quoted from the News Link

Two teenagers both denied murder at Liverpool Crown Court but the 16-year-old admitted manslaughter.

Murder charges will not now be pursued. The teenager was remanded in custody for sentencing next month. A 15-year-old boy was remanded on bail.

Simon

 

[Tynan]

indeed jake and of course I read it, that's why the CPS agree with me isn't it, but what use are plain facts in this debate

cab, tell me in what way you think your post has been twisted or whatever it is you're on about

as i read it, you think it was murder, and even if it wasn't you want them charged with murder?

it wasn't murder and more than one poster on here has explained why not, the law is perfectly clear on what constitutes murder

yet you insist it was and seem to be trying to pretend that my simple quote of your perfectly simple post has somehow made you out to be saying something you're not

the quote does not take your words out of context, yet you insist it does, just as you insist this is murder and even if it isn't it should still be

whatever

and you were insulting, ignorant, tacky, and all the rest wasn't just about the posts was it? poor form on a message board to behave like

 

[Cab]

cab, tell me in what way you think your post has been twisted or whatever it is you're on about

(remainder read, uncut, as its presumably more of the same drivel)

Read what I've written. I've repeated for you what you have done wrong; if you genuinely don't understand that (which I think is the case) then I no longer care.

 

[Cab]

At the risk of only quoting a small part of Cab's post ... had you of read the news link properly you would have answered your own questions

The first couple of news reports I saw on this story didn't make that clear. I see now that the BBC one linked to there does say that, which in my view is a crying shame.

 

[Tynan]

past sick of this

 

[Muddyfox]

You don't hit someone over the head with a plank without the intent to kill them or, if you do, then you need to be put away in a place where you can't be so stupid ever again. So the CPS need to make damned sure they persue a murder charge.

Cab ... they may well have updated the story between you reading it and me reading it ?

Tynan ... whilst i dont really want to get involved in the argument i guess the important bit in Cab's original post is the bit i've highlighted (Or if you do) my translation of what he is trying to say is

" No one in their right mind would pick up a plank of wood and smack someone round the head without the intention of killing them ... and if they did they should be in a secure mental institution for a very long time " ?

Simon