Millie Dowler trial.... a disgrace

C

clivex

Banned member
Joined
Jul 20, 2006
Messages
12,720
Lee Bellfield is a genuinely evil man> His first victim was killed about 100 yards from the house i was born in and worse, Amelie was someone I knew a little through her time working at Maison Blanc in Richmond. She was killed just round corner from me and ill never forget the helicopter taking her parents from the scene flying slowly over our house. Very moving....

But the ordeal the Dowlers had to go through was disgusting. I dont want to here some semi autistic response justifying all this on the basis of this law and that and I see that this has been taken apart by some anyway

How on earth can the defending lawyer and the bastard of a judge live with themsleves after that? Absolute filth IMO. What a disgusting way to earn a living

Of course the system needs changing and fast
 
Last edited:
Agreed, Clive.

Since the 80's there has been a too-strong bias towards "understanding" the criminal and making allowances for his background and upbringing etc. Yes, that does have to be taken into account for certain crimes somewhat, but it has been taken too far and has become unbalanced.

I was very taken with Mrs Dowler's courage in airing her true views and feelings, instead of the platitudes that the more politically-correct would wish to hear. All too often in this society we are being pressured to be something that the majority of us are not.

To lose a child to illness or accident must be hard enough, but to lose a child under such horrific circumstances and to know that someone has deliberately planned to abduct, violate and kill that child can only spark something in our oldest, darkest depths (which, admittedly, do need a degree of restraint to avoid acting on them).

While some understanding should be given to some people who commit certain crimes, the deliberate planning to degrade with violence and deprive someone of their life does not merit any kind of consideration at all, in my book.

Sure, everyone has "human rights" and we are lucky enough to live in a country where these are upheld, but when one person has deliberately deprived another of their life, that person should be deprived of all but the most basic of human rights.

When the processes of law and upholding of the perpetrator's human rights turns the family into suspects, there is something very wrong.

I sympathise wholly with Mrs Dowler's reaction outside the court yesterday - she was remarkably restrained under the circumstances.
 
I've had to buy The Times tonight to get the tv supplement as my Radio Times hasn't been re-routed, and there's a massive article on this subject. Don't know what happened to the Dowlers during the trial, but it must've been gross for the CoP or whatever he is to recommend changing the system.

I, too, am fed up with prisoners' 'human' rights being touted as inviolable, when, as Redhead has said, they've denied the most basic right to life to their victims. In the case of murdering children, I'm quite happy to throw my lot in with the Saudis' take on this and invite the parents to see justice done for their youngsters. When a little boy was abducted by policemen in their car, sodomised and strangled, they were all executed in the child's village, where the mother cried, "I want to make henna with their blood". If my own child had met such a vile end, I think all pretence of 'moving on' would go out of the window, and I'd want to see them die for their wickedness, too. Telling me that the bastard would be treated fairly and that his punishment would be the curtailment of being at liberty would not be enough for me.
 
from day one the humans right act has constantly protected criminals..basically a criminals charter

its quite clear that being a victim seems to remove any rights you have

its all geared to the wrongdoer

i know we have had this discussion many times..but there is a need for the death penalty for certain crimes

the main argument is..we might not catch the right person..my argument against that is..DNA...and does anyone think such as Sutcliffe is wrongly convicted?..Ian Brady?

Sutcliffe and the Moors murderers could have gone years ago..we could have built a hospital or two with the money its cost to home, feed and guard these creatures. There are plenty more who are guilty as charged as well.
 
Last edited:
I couldn't disagree more with the views expressed on this thread but, then again, I'm a criminal defence lawyer.

The problem with debates like this is that most people rightly regard themselves as law-abiding and cannot envisage a situation in which they might be charged with a serious criminal offence. People's views change profoundly when that happens.

The Bellfield case has provoked a huge amount of controversy but I'm sorry to say, to use a racing phrase, that a lot of it amounts to aftertiming.
 
Problem is, Gus, the public only ever hear about things like court cases through the media.

The reporter's personal assessment and attitude will colour their reporting of the daily ongoings and final outcome and may even be written with the purpose of stirring up our less civilised emotional responses.

Only the people involved in the case are privy to all the ins-and-outs of each case, so although a case will be reported on, the information given will be limited and, as I have said, coloured by the outlook of the person giving that information.

Are transcriptions of court cases available to the general public?

How would you define a "serious criminal offence", please?

Certainly I understand that there have to be safeguards to ensure that a person is not abused or mistreated whilst awaiting trial and judgement, just in case s/he is not guilty and in order not to infringe their human rights.

Loss of liberty is certainly a reduction of one's rights, but sadly does seem a small price to someone who has been hurt/damaged or lost a loved one through the actions of another - particularly when that action was wilful.

Yes, I do understand that home backgrounds have to be investigated in such matters - just in case, but why the aggression in handling the family of a missing child?

The outcry seems to be because it appears that the guilty can hide behind the law regarding their rights as it stands.

The majority of us are not involved in law, so would welcome a lawyer's view of such matters in order to understand (or try) what is actually involved when someone like yourself undertakes the defence of someone who has either run into some kind of trouble and acted unlawfully or someone who actually "dunnit".

This is very interesting and I would be most glad of your considered reply, if you have the time, that is.
 
redhead said:
The majority of us are not involved in law, so would welcome a lawyer's view of such matters in order to understand (or try) what is actually involved when someone like yourself undertakes the defence of someone who has either run into some kind of trouble and acted unlawfully or someone who actually "dunnit".

This is very interesting and I would be most glad of your considered reply, if you have the time, that is.
Click to expand...

I will reply in some detail, redhead, probably later today. Can I also deal with your question from the point of defending someone who is actually innocent and not just someone who "acted unlawfully" or who "dunnit"? I'm not being flippant - there are some innocent people out there, you know.

Colin - it's not that impressive but I don't advertise the fact because in the eyes of some doing this job puts you on a par with murderers, paedophiles and rapists. See Clive's opening post - a judge and barrister labelled "filth" for just doing their respective jobs.
 
It impresses me..........Clive is just being what Clive always is.........he enjoys winding up us non-English lefties..............I'm sure he has a Union-flag suit in his wardrobe.;)
 
but I'm sorry to say, to use a racing phrase, that a lot of it amounts to aftertiming.
Click to expand...

In find that pretty offensive myself. Disgusting point of view. We were supposed to have an opinion on the questioning before it happened were we? WTF are you on about?

Anyone who thinks that the risible "defence" put up by this psycho was worth the time of day needs a good look at themselves.

And none of these lawyers have to do this job. Taking money for putting the Dowler family through that vile ordeal is worthy of everyones contempt.


Colin. I am no nationlist and never have been. Yet again the left thinks everyone who isnt an islamist sympathising, victim baiting, jew hating, public sector scrounging idiot must be one step away from UKIP. Never in million years and english lefties are just as easy to bait. :)
 
so would welcome a lawyer's view of such matters in order to understand
Click to expand...

No we wouldnt. They can go fuck themselves. We know that it was wrong and thats that.

the rule of law or whatever it is has created this monstrosity whereby defendents can put forward "character" as an accusation. It was warped and must not happen again.
 
will never agree with the calls for capital punishment myself and the last thing i would want to see is any version of Saudi law. especially as in last week we have seen the beheading on a maid who murdered following extreme abuse. Thats one foul country we can learn nothing from

Psychopaths are ill. Thats not sympathy but its a fact (actually medically proven) of life. I cannot "hate" them for that. Lawyers different matter....

And for those who think these people are just doing their job, who advised bellfield to take this course of action? Santa Claus?
 
Last edited:
You were calling for child murderers to be hung from lamp posts not that long ago, Clivex - so don't come the old 'capital punishment is wrong' nonsense. I said that if it were my child so cruelly and wilfully murdered (we're not talking about some spur of the moment lashing out that went terribly wrong), I'd want blood. That would be the more natural feeling, I think, than a mother wishing the accused (and accused on the basis of good evidence and due procedure) to be treated fairly and just put in a cell for 15 years, which is what an awful lot of so-called 'life' sentences amount to. You could, actually, have learned a lot from the Saudis back in the 1970s, when this country was laid low by strikes for a number of quite reasonable workers' rights, which were already enshrined in law in that country for the benefit of working men and women. And don't get me started on a mother's rights to maternity leave - it left Sweden standing, let alone this country, which had yet to frame any.
 
Thats rubbish Krizon. I never said that. if you are refering to the Fiona wilkinson (a thread in which i recall some posted with no sympathy at all for the victims) thread I said aht the bullies could be strung from the lamposts for all i care but admitted it was an emotional response
when this country was laid low by strikes for a number of quite reasonable workers' rights, which were already enshrined in law in that country for the benefit of working men and women
Click to expand...



Like women taxi drivers?

Saudi women face discrimination in many aspects of their lives, such as the justice system. Although they make up 70% of those enrolled in universities, for social reasons, women make up 5% of the workforce in Saudi Arabia,[12] the lowest proportion in the world. The treatment of women has been referred to as "sex segregation"[13][14] and "gender apartheid".[15][16] Implementation of a government resolution supporting expanded employment opportunities for women met resistance from within the labor ministry,[17] from the religious police,[18] and from the male citizenry.[1
Click to expand...
Strikes in the 70s here were for rights? such as? The workers had the right to strike for a start (did they in saudi?) They had the vote? Did they in saudi? The 70s strikes (and im reading this up at the moment in state of emergency- dominic sandbrook) were almost always about money. nothing else. Sometimes justified sometimes not
 
Last edited:
On second thoughts, redhead, I don't think I'll bother.

I'm always reluctant to get involved in non-racing debates on forums because of the bile that spews forth and there's been far too much of it already on this thread. I wish I hadn't posted.

Sorry and all that.
 
clivex said:
Colin. I am no nationlist and never have been. Yet again the left thinks everyone who isnt an islamist sympathising, victim baiting, jew hating, public sector scrounging idiot must be one step away from UKIP. Never in million years and english lefties are just as easy to bait. :)
Click to expand...

You sound like you should be in the Tea Party.
 
wide of mark as ever. they are idiots

I dont like to trumpet exactly what my views are. let others decide but Christopher hitchen would be closest. lets leave it at that
 
In a country that is on the cutback and looking for savings..i'd have thought thinning out the prison population would have been on the agenda tbh.:rolleyes:

talking of savings..seeing as we are cutting this and that...when are the banks going to pay back all that money that bailed em out?..we either now own the banks or they owe a lot of money back

as i see it..the government threw the equavalent of a 100 quid at the banks..and is now trying to claw 35p back from pensions

surely now that the banks are paying 1 million bonuses out again..they can afford to start paying their massive debt back

or have i missed something obvious.?
 
I'm not going into all the ins and outs of Saudi Arabia as there are enough books and articles on the subject, Clivex, and as it's one of your favourite targets, it's pointless trying to actually engage with you on it, rather than just trade rant for rant. Don't be too hysterical about voting, either - British single men and women weren't even allowed to live in poxy Council houses in the 1960s and British women were often educated differently to men, as well as expected to earn considerably less for doing any job - same level or higher, it didn't matter.

The Saudis had already enshrined the same pay for the same job regardless of gender, come up with a host of workmen's rules (the stuff the British unions were still bellowing for) and regulations regarding safety at work and compensation; guaranteed paid time off with full then part pay following illness or injury; 6 weeks' maternity time before delivery and 8 weeks after with full pay for women workers, followed by TWO YEARS of working 6 hours a day on FULL PAY to allow for looking after baby. We got that yet in the UK?
 
Dont go on about voting? :<3 Its a sort of basic right i always thought

If you think that saudi is some sort of womans working paradise then thats up to you. Maybe some indonesian maids will disagree ...for a start
 
A friend of mine is a witness for the prosecution in a murder trial due to start in September. She is seriously worried about what she is going to be asked after what happened at the Bellfield trial.
Although the family now have 'closure', I would ask if there is a another way to prosecute offenders who are already in prison serving life for other crimes to hand them yet another life sentence.
I am in favour of capital punishment, and other than satisfaction for the family and police, was what gained by another trial for this obviously already proven evil man? Not ill, just evil.
 
gus said:
I'm not being flippant - there are some innocent people out there, you know.QUOTE]

gus said:
Can I also deal with your question from the point of defending someone who is actually innocent and not just someone who "acted unlawfully" or who "dunnit"? I'm not being flippant - there are some innocent people out there, you know.QUOTE]

Thanks for replying, Gus. No, I didn't regard it as flippant at all. I'm not sure, though, that I expressed myself properly regarding your last sentence as I realise that many of the people you deal with will not be guilty of what they have been charged with. What I meant was that they had got into a situation where, in ignorance, someone had contravened the law, either in confusion or whilst in the hold of strong emotion.

In light of your later post, I am sorry that you won't be replying as I am genuinely interested in all sides of an argument and your expertise in the law would have opened up a view that few of us are likely to even consider, unless we ourselves have direct experience and need of your and your colleagues' help and advice.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top