Things that make you go What the F**k?

[RedHand88]

Looks like there wasn't a big one of work done the day men! Productive Friday.

[Capt Pat]

The ad for a betting website where Tony Cascarino runs from a bar in Dublin to Eastern Europe and back to his big house to check if he left the immersion on.

[armaghniac]

Sunak going to Normandy and leaving early for a TV interview! As if the couldn't find a TV camera there

[Blowitupref]

The length of the ballot paper for the European election yesterday in the midlands north west.

[David McKeown]

On the Lyra McKee trial, heard summaries a few times on the radio, but do they actually have any decent evidence against the accused? From what I've heard, it seems very weak.

You'd imagine it would be very very difficult to prove who was there never mind who fired the shot.

If they could prove who fired the gun, is it murder or manslaughter given the fact that they would have been trying to target a cop and not an innocent bystander?

I'm far from an expert but I think it's still murder regardless.

I'm no expert either. But if you fire a gun you intend to kill.

In order to be guilty of murder the prosecution must prove that the defendant committed a voluntary act or omission that caused the victim's death and that by his actions the defendant intended to cause death or really serious harm to the victim. Proving intent to cause really serious harm as opposed to just harm or serious harm can be difficult which is why a lot of what would appear to be murders end up as manslaughter.

Now things get a little murkier when you are dealing with either the doctrine of transferred malice or joint enterprise.  Its not commonly used but the prosecution can rely on a defendant's intent to inflict death or really serious harm on someone other than the victim but to do so they have to prove both that intent and that the defendant and that they should have known that another may suffer death or harm and continued in that knowledge (doctrine of transferred malice).  Its a doctrine that has been heavily criticised over the years.

There's potentially another element to the case involving joint enterprise and what specific intent would have to be proven against those charges which is very complicated.  So complicated in fact that between 1985 and 2016 we all got the law wrong potentially resulting in many wrongful convictions.

So to not really answer the original question its complicated in this case and without seeing all the evidence I wouldn't even be able to guess.   

[Armagh18]

On the Lyra McKee trial, heard summaries a few times on the radio, but do they actually have any decent evidence against the accused? From what I've heard, it seems very weak.

You'd imagine it would be very very difficult to prove who was there never mind who fired the shot.

If they could prove who fired the gun, is it murder or manslaughter given the fact that they would have been trying to target a cop and not an innocent bystander?

I'm far from an expert but I think it's still murder regardless.

I'm no expert either. But if you fire a gun you intend to kill.

In order to be guilty of murder the prosecution must prove that the defendant committed a voluntary act or omission that caused the victim's death and that by his actions the defendant intended to cause death or really serious harm to the victim. Proving intent to cause really serious harm as opposed to just harm or serious harm can be difficult which is why a lot of what would appear to be murders end up as manslaughter.

Now things get a little murkier when you are dealing with either the doctrine of transferred malice or joint enterprise.  Its not commonly used but the prosecution can rely on a defendant's intent to inflict death or really serious harm on someone other than the victim but to do so they have to prove both that intent and that the defendant and that they should have known that another may suffer death or harm and continued in that knowledge (doctrine of transferred malice).  Its a doctrine that has been heavily criticised over the years.

There's potentially another element to the case involving joint enterprise and what specific intent would have to be proven against those charges which is very complicated.  So complicated in fact that between 1985 and 2016 we all got the law wrong potentially resulting in many wrongful convictions.

So to not really answer the original question its complicated in this case and without seeing all the evidence I wouldn't even be able to guess.   

Was hoping you'd reply to this!

Surely the bold applies here?

[David McKeown]

On the Lyra McKee trial, heard summaries a few times on the radio, but do they actually have any decent evidence against the accused? From what I've heard, it seems very weak.

You'd imagine it would be very very difficult to prove who was there never mind who fired the shot.

If they could prove who fired the gun, is it murder or manslaughter given the fact that they would have been trying to target a cop and not an innocent bystander?

I'm far from an expert but I think it's still murder regardless.

I'm no expert either. But if you fire a gun you intend to kill.

In order to be guilty of murder the prosecution must prove that the defendant committed a voluntary act or omission that caused the victim's death and that by his actions the defendant intended to cause death or really serious harm to the victim. Proving intent to cause really serious harm as opposed to just harm or serious harm can be difficult which is why a lot of what would appear to be murders end up as manslaughter.

Now things get a little murkier when you are dealing with either the doctrine of transferred malice or joint enterprise.  Its not commonly used but the prosecution can rely on a defendant's intent to inflict death or really serious harm on someone other than the victim but to do so they have to prove both that intent and that the defendant and that they should have known that another may suffer death or harm and continued in that knowledge (doctrine of transferred malice).  Its a doctrine that has been heavily criticised over the years.

There's potentially another element to the case involving joint enterprise and what specific intent would have to be proven against those charges which is very complicated.  So complicated in fact that between 1985 and 2016 we all got the law wrong potentially resulting in many wrongful convictions.

So to not really answer the original question its complicated in this case and without seeing all the evidence I wouldn't even be able to guess. 

Was hoping you'd reply to this!

Surely the bold applies here?

I don't know enough about the case but I'd imagine that's the case the prosecution will try to make. That said it's a complicated enough doctrine that isn't routinely argued and has been subject to much criticism over the years so I can't say it will succeed. It might but I don't know.

[Itchy]

The length of the ballot paper for the European election yesterday in the midlands north west.

A real opportunity missed to hand it out as a scroll

[From the Bunker]

The length of the ballot paper for the European election yesterday in the midlands north west.

A real opportunity missed to hand it out as a scroll

I voted down to 5. There was a lot of blank boxes.

[dec]

A few years back I took great pleasure in filling in every box and giving Ian Paisley my last preference in a European election.

[From the Bunker]

A few years back I took great pleasure in filling in every box and giving Ian Paisley my last preference in a European election.

I'd rather my vote to just vanish into thin air than for the rest on the ballot to benefit from it if it was transferable.

[dec]

A few years back I took great pleasure in filling in every box and giving Ian Paisley my last preference in a European election.

I'd rather my vote to just vanish into thin air than for the rest on the ballot to benefit from it if it was transferable.

But the lower preferences will only matter if your higher preferences have been elected or eliminated. If you vote all the way to the bottom the only way your vote will end up with the nut jobs is if they are the only ones left contesting the last seat.

Your vote will never end up with your last preference and will only end up with your second last preference if all higher preferences have been elected or eliminated.

[RedHand88]

A few years back I took great pleasure in filling in every box and giving Ian Paisley my last preference in a European election.

I'd rather my vote to just vanish into thin air than for the rest on the ballot to benefit from it if it was transferable.

They won't benefit though if it's the last number on the ticket.

[Wildweasel74]

Vote down the numbers myself a whole lot too.

[Jell 0 Biafra]

A few years back I took great pleasure in filling in every box and giving Ian Paisley my last preference in a European election.

I'd rather my vote to just vanish into thin air than for the rest on the ballot to benefit from it if it was transferable.

They won't benefit though if it's the last number on the ticket.

They can't all be last, though.  I take it that's Bunker's point.