Support NeoGAF

[Lear]

Exactly. In addition if it were a member of the public, so far as the evidence of death goes, they might have a few post mortems until they came up with one that showed that death was caused by the assault and use that one in evidence - leaving the poor old defence team on legal aid to poke around the details, whereas here the sheer fact of there being differing postmortem results is used as a reason for not charging at all rather than picking the best one for the purpose.

The more I think about this the messier it is.

There's another take on it here:

http://ofinteresttolwayers.blogspot.com/2010/07/members-of-jury.html

It seems very odd to me that the dispute in the various autopsies is the main reason that is keeping them from charging anything. I haven't studied the law of evidence so I may be completely wrong but when the two subsequent autopsies directly contradict what the first pathologist said, that'd cast doubt on the first autopsy, rather than the case as a whole. It makes more sense to me, considering the public scrutiny the case is under, to let it go to trial and let a jury decide. When you consider that Dr Patel is being investigated by the GMC for incompetently performing autopsies, his evidence is at the very least questionable. Also, he wasn't aware when he performed the autopsy of the previous assault so it's not impossible that he just did a quick, routine autopsy to establish cause of death without a thorough investigation.

The CPS seem to be jumping through hoops to avoid charging, ignoring case law and their own guidelines as they go.

 

[phisheep]

It seems very odd to me that the dispute in the various autopsies is the main reason that is keeping them from charging anything. I haven't studied the law of evidence so I may be completely wrong but when the two subsequent autopsies directly contradict what the first pathologist said, that'd cast doubt on the first autopsy, rather than the case as a whole. It makes more sense to me, considering the public scrutiny the case is under, to let it go to trial and let a jury decide. When you consider that Dr Patel is being investigated by the GMC for incompetently performing autopsies, his evidence is at the very least questionable. Also, he wasn't aware when he performed the autopsy of the previous assault so it's not impossible that he just did a quick, routine autopsy to establish cause of death without a thorough investigation.

The CPS seem to be jumping through hoops to avoid charging, ignoring case law and their own guidelines as they go.

The basic law of evidence isn't hard - it just looks that way because it is all hedged round with arcane stuff about hearsay and admissibility and so on so forth, plus some tricky bits about what counts as fact and what counts as law (enough to fill an 800 -page book on the shelf behind me). But the real basic stuff is simply that

(a) evidence doesn't get to be heard on matters that are not disputed - well, that's sort of true for civil cases, but for criminal cases the prosecution still has to go through the business of proving every step

(b) only admissible evidence counts (lots of rules about that and they keep changing)

(c) (and this is the important one) where there is conflicting evidence - which there nearly always will be where a matter is disputed - it is for the judge of fact to decide which is which. That could be magistrates (but not their legal advisors) or a judge (civil cases except libel mostly) or a jury (for indictable offences). What autopsies came in what order is nothing to do with it, it isn't a matter of law it's about working out what the facts are.

It is not the CPS's job to determine facts. And they claim in their justification that they aren't doing that but actually they are, in particular they say there is no reliable evidence of actual bodily harm - when what they should have said (if that's what they meant) is that there's no reliable evidence of cause of death. Different things completely.

(if you want to get into the law of evidence, I'd stongly suggest reading the first bit of Lord Bingham's book about judging first, it helps to get a judge's point of view before you get into the arcana).

 

[Subliminal]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10756830

And so the end of higher education begins.

 

[Veidt]

whoa.

 

[SmokyDave]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10756830

And so the end of higher education begins.

How fitting...

A planned school of healthcare could offer degree courses in areas including dentistry, nursing, radiography, speech therapy, psychology and physiotherapy.

 

[Subliminal]

How fitting...

Well, most 'healthcare' degrees are currently funded by the NHS (NHS will pay all tuition fees for students of certain subjects) But i dont see how that'd be possible with some stupid private university hogging up all the good teachers and charging extortionate fees.

 

[louis89]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10756830

And so the end of higher education begins.

If countries such as Japan, the United States, France, Germany, Switzerland and Canada can have plenty of private universities and do just fine, why can't we?

 

[blazinglord]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10756830

And so the end of higher education begins.

Even if that was true, would it necessarily be a bad thing? I think the Labour government's target of trying to get everyone to attend to university was misguided (as was making A levels compulsory). Not everyone is academically inclined to do further education, and I think it's time to recognise the differences in aptitudes. What we have ended up with now is poorly-run universities that are churning out mickey mouse degrees left, right and centre, while leaving a massive hole in the job market for apprentice professions such as plumbers, carpenters and electricians.

Even worse, the surge in people attending university has devalued degrees completely and these days it is hardly worth the paper it's printed on. Even those applying for shop assistant position are expected to have a degree now!

 

[Mr. Sam]

I knew I should have gone into radiography. Oh, piss.

 

[Empty]

you know what my favourite thing is ukpoligaf. being at my grandparents over the weekend for a family gathering and stuck as the only lefty on a table made up of seven other hardcore tories when politics is brought up at dinner. and the following lunch. fun times!

 

[Chinner]

kind of similar situation for me whenever i come back home for holidays. except my dad is utterly extreme so i don't bother discussing politics or defending left principles. infact, he doesnt even know that i am left politically. some of the things he says though would just make you roll your eyes though.

 

[Subliminal]

the privatization of the higher education system is not a good idea. What we want and need is a more skilled workforce, we need more and more tertiary and quaternary sector workers due to a shrinking primary and secondary sector.

Compulsory A Levels are a fantastic idea as it places our workforce above or equal to its counterparts around the world and if a student from a poorer background wishes to go to university it should be made as accessible as possible.

Private universities are a step back in social mobility and completely against the ethos of the welfare state.

What we need to be doing is restructuring the current university system to maximise the cashflow and provide the best education at the most accessible cost for the most people.

 

[Mr. Sam]

you know what my favourite thing is ukpoligaf. being at my grandparents over the weekend for a family gathering and stuck as the only lefty on a table made up of seven other hardcore tories when politics is brought up at dinner. and the following lunch. fun times!

That's what I call Tuesday. My brother's the weirdest. He claims to be liberal, voted Labour, but always says "If there's one thing I agree with the Tories on, it's..." - and it's a different policy area every time.

 

[ghst]

and the hits keep coming...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-10761225

so long uk film council.

clutch your passports tight, gents.

 

[Empty]

Films supported by the [UK Film Council] fund include James Marsh’s Oscar-winning Man on Wire; Armando Iannucci’s In the Loop (Sundance 2009); Jane Campion’s Bright Star; Andrea Arnold’s Fish Tank; Dominic Murphy’s White Lightnin’ (Berlin and Sundance Film Festivals 2009); Sally Potter’s Rage (Berlin Competition 2009); Noel Clarke’s Adulthood (BAFTA Rising Star); Ken Loach’s The Wind That Shakes the Barley (Cannes, Palme d'Or); Shane Meadows’s This is England (BAFTA, Best British Film); Kevin Macdonald’s Touching the Void (BAFTA, Best British Film); Andrea Arnold’s Red Road (Cannes, Jury Prize); Paul Andrew Williams’s London to Brighton (Edinburgh International Film Festival, Best New Director); Alexis Dos Santos’s Unmade Beds (also at Berlin and Sundance 2009); and Duane Hopkins’s Better Things (Cannes, Critics’ Week

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Film_Council

fuuuuuuuuuuuu.

 

[Subliminal]

That saved £15m, and probably not even that as the film council was also funded by the lottery.

Fuck sake.

What the fuck are clegg and cable doing?!

 

[Mr. Sam]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Film_Council

fuuuuuuuuuuuu.

DAMN IIIIT!!

 

[Chinner]

That saved £15m, and probably not even that as the film council was also funded by the lottery.

Fuck sake.

What the fuck are clegg and cable doing?!

embracing their inner tory.

 

[Subliminal]

embracing their inner tory.

well they are obviously having something tory put inside them

 

[sohois]

the government has to cut everything that is non-essential to get the deficit under control and arts and culture is hardly important to most people. Indeed, i'm surprised most of poligaf is so upset given that the majority of art & culture funded by the government is used far more by the wealthy. Of course, it is a noble aim to attempt to educate the less-interested as to the wonders of most artistic endeavor, but unfortunately its not something that can be justified in the current period.

 

[Subliminal]

POOR PEOPLE CANT WATCH FILMS. THEY ARE ALLOWED ONE PIECE OF STRING TO ENTERTAIN THEMSELVES.

 

[Meadows]

Unpopular stuff needs to be done, and this government, unlike the last one, is actually facing the reality that we can't afford to support everything with the amount of debt we are in.

I know it sucks, but in a few years when we're out of debt then we'll look back and be thankful.

 

[Mr. Sam]

POOR PEOPLE CANT WATCH FILMS. THEY ARE ALLOWED ONE PIECE OF STRING TO ENTERTAIN THEMSELVES.

But it comes in several colours. Conservatism is all about choice.

 

[ghst]

the government has to cut everything that is non-essential to get the deficit under control and arts and culture is hardly important to most people. Indeed, i'm surprised most of poligaf is so upset given that the majority of art & culture funded by the government is used far more by the wealthy. Of course, it is a noble aim to attempt to educate the less-interested as to the wonders of most artistic endeavor, but unfortunately its not something that can be justified in the current period.

damn, does that mean i'll get my state-funded vue megapass revoked? what about the free thunderdome of popcorn that comes with it?

Unpopular stuff needs to be done, and this government, unlike the last one, is actually facing the reality that we can't afford to support everything with the amount of debt we are in.

I know it sucks, but in a few years when we're out of debt then we'll look back and be thankful.

where does this kind of "if it's cut, it needed to go." thinking come from? £15 million isn't exactly an extortionate amount for an institution that (however effectively) fertilizes a billion pound industry, with uk films making up 7% of the global market in 2009.

if the tories are so disgusted at the way it's being run, restructure it. don't just shit it away and wait for the doting saving grace of the mystical and omnipresent private sector to fill the gaps, as has become standard operating procedure for this government.

 

[Visualante]

As someone who will hopefully work in the UK film/animation industry I find this to be a real targedy. Film Four can't pick up the slack.

 

[Subliminal]

But in all seriousness that council was helping to support an industry. It is a stupid idea to cut it.

 

[Chinner]

But in all seriousness that council was helping to support an industry. It is a stupid idea to cut it.

tories don't watch movies they just drink wine and laugh at poor people in poverty wagons (buses).

 

[Meadows]

tories don't watch movies they just drink wine and laugh at poor people in poverty wagons (buses).

:lol

 

[Zenith]

Unpopular stuff needs to be done, and this government, unlike the last one, is actually facing the reality that we can't afford to support everything with the amount of debt we are in.

I know it sucks, but in a few years when we're out of debt then we'll look back and be thankful.

yeah, but 15mln is a pittance.

now about that £10+ billion nuke replacement...

 

[Subliminal]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10757014

Ugh.

More bad news.

what exactly will electing someone to oversee the police do?! I dont want to vote for someone to tell the police what to do. i want more police on the streets.

 

[SmokyDave]

tories don't watch movies they just drink wine and laugh at poor people in poverty wagons (buses).

:lol

We call 'em 'Peasant Wagons' round 'ere.

 

[Empty]

don't worry guys. i'm sure the film studios will use the generous 3p cut in corporation tax that osbourne is giving them to fund interesting and creative independent cinema in the UK Film Council's void, rather than adding a bigger ad campaign for their latest shitty romantic comedy and having their ceo's pocket the rest.

 

[Mr. Sam]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10757014

Ugh.

More bad news.

what exactly will electing someone to oversee the police do?! I dont want to vote for someone to tell the police what to do. i want more police on the streets.

Vote for the guy who wants more police on the streets, I guess.

 

[Subliminal]

"the proposed introduction of police reservists - a pool of volunteers to undertake police duties"

Oh my god. who the fuck is going to volunteer in the area that really need policing, the inner cities. No one! cause they'd get stabbed!

 

[Empty]

the government has to cut everything that is non-essential to get the deficit under control and arts and culture is hardly important to most people. Indeed, i'm surprised most of poligaf is so upset given that the majority of art & culture funded by the government is used far more by the wealthy. Of course, it is a noble aim to attempt to educate the less-interested as to the wonders of most artistic endeavor, but unfortunately its not something that can be justified in the current period.

i'd buy this if hunt had said 'we can't afford it right now, but when we have the deficit under control we commit to bringing it back and our government believes in the positive role that the state can have in encouraging arts and culture in this country through investment'. like y'know, he actually thought it was a good body, not some labour quango ripe for cutting in the tories war on the state blah blah. he didn't; it's probably gone for good.

 

[D4Danger]

the government has to cut everything that is non-essential [..]

at this rate there will be nothing left.

 

[painey]

it's pretty fucking incredible what this new government is doing.. or should I say un-doing.. I knew voting in the Tories was a bad idea but I honestly didn't expect so much shit so quickly.

 

[Reno7728]

60% of LD voters would still have voted Lib Dem if they knew the coalition would have been formed

Four in 10 people who say they voted Lib Dem would not have done had they known the party would enter a coalition with the Tories, a poll suggests.
But 86% of Conservative voters would have voted the same way had they known their party would join forces with the Lib Dems, the ComRes survey found.
The poll of 1,009 adults for Newsnight also showed 37% of Lib Dem voters felt their party was dishonest about cuts.

 

[J Tourettes]

An alternative take on the UKFC:

My take on the abolition of the UK Film Council.
This is hastily written because I’ve had a long day, maybe later in the week I’ll rewrite it with less swearwords and more actual examples….

To everyone who’s bitching about the UK Film Council being abolished:

As someone who has been trained by, taught for, been through the funding process and had to attend seminars with the organisation, I’d just like to say this: THANK FUCK IT’S BEING SHITCANNED. It is without doubt the most ineffective, bureaucratic gravy train I have ever had the misfortune to witness. If you think that the organisation has been some kind of saviour for British film, you are HUGELY mistaken.

The UKFC was basically a place where a handful of people who didn’t seem to have had any obvious practical film-making experience lauded over all those who wanted to get interesting films made. For the best part of a decade, I’ve watched them waste money on lavish parties, regular ‘networking’ trips to L.A. and schemes which channeled money into the pockets of endless ‘experts’ and ‘consultants’ and not into films. Most of the films which have their name on it were actually independent productions which got off the ground completely independently and, at the point the film was looking like a sure bet, the UKFC would kick in a few thousand ‘completion money’ to get their name on the poster and justify their existence.

More here

Obviously not a fan :lol

 

[Mr. Sam]

Mmm, KFC.

 

[louis89]

Amazed they haven't cut EMA yet.

 

[D4Danger]

60% of LD voters would still have voted Lib Dem if they knew the coalition would have been formed

yeah, you got your little bit of power. I hope you're happy being the Tories lap dog.

 

[blazinglord]

the privatization of the higher education system is not a good idea. What we want and need is a more skilled workforce, we need more and more tertiary and quaternary sector workers due to a shrinking primary and secondary sector.

Compulsory A Levels are a fantastic idea as it places our workforce above or equal to its counterparts around the world and if a student from a poorer background wishes to go to university it should be made as accessible as possible.

Private universities are a step back in social mobility and completely against the ethos of the welfare state.

What we need to be doing is restructuring the current university system to maximise the cashflow and provide the best education at the most accessible cost for the most people.

Social welfare is suppose to be a safety net for the most vulnerable, not a way of life.

Amazed they haven't cut EMA yet.

They should. It is a complete waste of money.

 

[Salazar]

Mr Willetts says that private universities will help to develop innovative ways of delivering courses, such as online degrees.

Hahahahahahaha hohohohohohohohoho. You lazy, greedy, bogus motherfuckers.

 

[Deadman]

 

[Subliminal]

Social welfare is suppose to be a safety net for the most vulnerable, not a way of life.


They should. It is a complete waste of money.

A safety net for the most vulnerable is one of its functions. it should also support social mobility.

The people who say EMA is a waste of money are the rich kids who are jealous of those who got it.

 

[blazinglord]

A safety net for the most vulnerable is one of its functions. it should also support social mobility.

I wonder why then, the expansion of the welfare state has negatively correlated with the decline in social mobility? In my view, the welfare state should only be a safety net. Otherwise you end up an underclass who are a symptom of welfare dependency. I'm glad the coalition is going to crack down on benefits and withdraw it from those who refuse job offers and/or been out of work for more than three years. The free lunch is over.

The people who say EMA is a waste of money are the rich kids who are jealous of those who got it.

Why would 'rich' kids be jealous of someone who gets £10 a week? Presumably they are rich enough to not care one way or another. I oppose EMAs on a matter of principle. Why should people be paid to attend college? They should be going because they want to do well and achieve academic success. The real problem with social democrats is their flawed egalitarian thinking and their blind refusal to accept that not everyone is suited to academia. I would much rather governments pour money into rewarding the academically gifted with scholarships, not paying some chav to attend to a crappy comp only to see him fail. Although given prevalent grade inflation, the said chav would probably pass and indirectly contribute to the devaluation of A levels.

 

[Subliminal]

I wonder why then, the expansion of the welfare state has negatively correlated with the decline in social mobility? In my view, the welfare state should only be a safety net. Otherwise you end up an underclass who are a symptom of welfare dependency. I'm glad the coalition is going to crack down on benefits and withdraw it from those who refuse job offers and/or been out of work for more than three years. The free lunch is over.


Why would 'rich' kids be jealous of someone who gets £10 a week? Presumably they are rich enough to not care one way or another. I oppose EMAs on a matter of principle. Why should people be paid to attend college? They should be going because they want to do well and achieve academic success. The real problem with social democrats is their flawed egalitarian thinking and their blind refusal to accept that not everyone is suited to academia. I would much rather governments pour money into rewarding the academically gifted with scholarships, not paying some chav to attend to a crappy comp only to see him fail. Although given prevalent grade inflation, the said chav would probably pass and indirectly contribute to the devaluation of A levels.

Wow, taken straight from the daily mail. The underclass dependency is a side affect of any welfare state. the underclass are the most vulnerable and the welfare state is there to provide for them. Don't belive the tabloid stories of these benefit thieves who sit on thrones and spend their money on cigarettes and beer. Its a plain and simple fact that they could get more money if they got a job and if those people dont want jobs then whats wrong with that? The real problem with conservatives is their flawed egalitarian thinking and their blind refusal to accept that not everyone is suited to working 9 to 5.

Benefit withdrawal is wrong. what the government should be doing is helping those who have been unemployed for a long time and helping the obvious underlying problems they have (illness, etc). Think of it this way. If you were unable to work for a long period of time and survived solely on your government handout every two weeks. would you want to have help getting a job or have all of that money taken away from you and you being forced to live on the street.

And on the subject of ema. you are an absolute idiot. Its not about 'rewarding' people for going to school and doing well. its an incentive for staying in school. There are people from poorer background who can not rely on their parents to provide them with money to go out and buy things or go to the cinema or whatever. For those people it would be far more beneficial for them to go straight into work. However the incentive of a steady cashflow to allow them to do things brings them into education and allows them to at least have a chance of gaining proper qualifications.

 

[blazinglord]

Wow, taken straight from the daily mail. The underclass dependency is a side affect of any welfare state. the underclass are the most vulnerable and the welfare state is there to provide for them. Don't belive the tabloid stories of these benefit thieves who sit on thrones and spend their money on cigarettes and beer. Its a plain and simple fact that they could get more money if they got a job and if those people dont want jobs then whats wrong with that? The real problem with conservatives is their flawed egalitarian thinking and their blind refusal to accept that not everyone is suited to working 9 to 5.

Benefit withdrawal is wrong. what the government should be doing is helping those who have been unemployed for a long time and helping the obvious underlying problems they have (illness, etc). Think of it this way. If you were unable to work for a long period of time and survived solely on your government handout every two weeks. would you want to have help getting a job or have all of that money taken away from you and you being forced to live on the street.

Not everyone is suited to working 9 to 5, so the people who are suited to working those hours should pay for those who aren't suited (or quite frankly, can't be bothered)? Well I, as a sane and working individual, understandably reject that analysis. People can either work full time or part time and live within the means their hours allows but work-shy individuals should face the consequences of their own actions. If that means sleeping rough, then so be it.

It is crystal clear to all three major parties that there needs to be fundamental welfare reform. The withdrawal and reduction of benefits is a step in the right direction, and funnily enough Labour has been extremely quiet on this front. Of course those who are unable to work because of their disability should continue to receive state support, I am not aware that the government seeks to change this particular area.

And on the subject of ema. you are an absolute idiot. Its not about 'rewarding' people for going to school and doing well. its an incentive for staying in school. There are people from poorer background who can not rely on their parents to provide them with money to go out and buy things or go to the cinema or whatever. For those people it would be far more beneficial for them to go straight into work. However the incentive of a steady cashflow to allow them to do things brings them into education and allows them to at least have a chance of gaining proper qualifications.

Oh I see it clearly now, going to the cinema to watch Inception is a human right and consequently the responsibility of the taxpayer to pay for visual entertainment. You're half right though by pointing out the tendency of people on low income to seek immediate gratification at the expense of deferred gratification. Ultimately though, I think the state should just provide the basic structures to give citizens an equal playing field at the start of life and allow them to choose which path to take. If one chooses to take the path of immediate gratification, then that is entirely up to them. The state should not, in my view, bribe them with EMAs to take the deferred gratification path.

 

[Chinner]

further reinforeces that clegg is a tory - or a liar (or both).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/29/nick-clegg-changed-mind-cuts

Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader and deputy prime minister, has admitted that he changed his mind about the timing of spending cuts prior to the general election, despite publicly telling the electorate weeks before the poll that early deep cuts would be "economic masochism".

shame he didn't tell us, probably wouldn't of voted for him if they did!