Looks like yet another overturning of a previous inquests findings...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4044677.stm

Particularly interesting -

'...called for "fundamental reform" of the inquest system and accused
pressure groups and MPs of attaching themselves to campaigns such as
this to "promote their own interests"'

and

'"As the judge observed as to the campaign in this case, 'justice is
impartial. Of course there must be justice for Roger, but there must
also be justice for police officers'."

He said there was no right at the inquest for the officers' lawyers to
make either an opening or closing speech, and said coroners did not
receive the training of even the most junior criminal judges.'


Not again widely commented on so far on this or other newsgroups,
probably as the decision doesn't support the race agenda held so dearly
by some.

Anyway, the above are interesting indictments of our 'enquiry and
inquest' system don't you think.

g.

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:25:18 +0000, Fat Freddy's Cat wrote:

'"As the judge observed as to the campaign in this case, 'justice is
impartial. Of course there must be justice for Roger, but there must
also be justice for police officers'."

Problem is, the courts don't give a **** about "Justice for Roger", just
"Justice for Police Officers".

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 19:55:10 +0000, Paul Robson put finger to keyboard
and typed:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:25:18 +0000, Fat Freddy's Cat wrote:

'"As the judge observed as to the campaign in this case, 'justice is
impartial. Of course there must be justice for Roger, but there must
also be justice for police officers'."

Problem is, the courts don't give a **** about "Justice for Roger", just
"Justice for Police Officers".

On the basis of the evidence available, what makes you say that? It
seems to me that the court's ruling was the correct one.

Mark
--
-- http://www.FridayFun.net - jokes, games and ringtones! --
"Too sweet to be sour too nice to be mean"

"Paul Robson" wrote in
message
news
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:25:18 +0000, Fat Freddy's Cat wrote:

'"As the judge observed as to the campaign in this case, 'justice is
impartial. Of course there must be justice for Roger, but there must
also be justice for police officers'."

Problem is, the courts don't give a **** about "Justice for Roger", just
"Justice for Police Officers".


For a moment, I wondered which newsgroup I was looking at. Had I stumbled
into the 'other place'?

Anyway, how about some sort of justification for that pretty strong
statement of yours, please.

Paul Robson wrote:
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:25:18 +0000, Fat Freddy's Cat wrote:


'"As the judge observed as to the campaign in this case, 'justice is
impartial. Of course there must be justice for Roger, but there must
also be justice for police officers'."


Problem is, the courts don't give a **** about "Justice for Roger", just
"Justice for Police Officers".


Putting aside the political issues, it strikes me that the judge in this
case was highly critical of the whole inquest system, rather than just
the particular inquest at issue.

g.