http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/301923-murder-charges-dropped-in-neil-lennon-bomb-trial/? I'm continually trying to assault people with explosive devices. "Aye, your honour I was only intending to maim, nae murder anyone" Bigoted joke of a country we live in; Riddled with moronic scum who will no doubt be lionised by the countless brain-dead Rangers fans across it.
obviously they were never meant to kill him, i mean why would you send a bomb to someone to kill them?
I'm away out looking for a fight this weekend. Might bring some hand grenades, no planning on killing any **** mind.
Its absolutely scandalous that this sort of thing goes on in this day and age. What its doing is saying its ok to try and kill people with the devices. Sorry but this is just wrong! Does this then give impetus to others who would want to go and try the same thing. Knowing that they wont be penalized in the manner it deserves
I would think , generally speaking, the law is often based around intent as opposed to outcome of the intented action. Not so sure that this principle has been applied here. The way this reads to me is that these two clowns intended to send something explosive in the post but were so dim that their efforts amounted to - quite literally - a damp squib. That has left Findlay and Jackson the defence position that they have taken......ie , they only intended to scare the recipients of their devices. Unfortunately, because their efforts were so shambolic, the judge has had little choice other than to let this defence stand - and therefore remove the possibility of conviction on an attempted murder charge. However, if you want my preferred theory, it is that the judge has been got at by alex salmond - who doesnt want scotchland to be seen as a hate-filled sectarian cess-pool, and also by peter lawell, who is using his machevalian skills to move lennon on.
Salmond was sent bullets in the post and the perpetrator was sentenced to six years. I am trying to get my head around it. If you send a viable device to a particular person, then very obviously the intention is to kill them. My flawed thought process in the Wilson case was that the jury did not have enough information to adjudicate on a Religious BOTP, therefore correctly ruled it not proven. I didn't understand that the jury could remove that themselves. If the same, or similar principles apply across the board in Scotch law, then can someone explain to me the rationale here?
Hateley in the record today has more or less followed up Lafferty comments . Rangers first eleven is stronger than Celtic , look at the old firm games , two convincing home wins at Ibrox !!, a narrow 1-0 defeat at Celtic Park where Wallace had a good goal disallowed .
