Like, can't she just get a divorce and say it is a Civil thing? Like if somone goes to a Catholic Bishop and says "husband hits me" he will say "We technically don't believe civil divorce ends a sacramental marriage, but even in a sacramental marriage you an physicaly seprate for you own saftey and in DV cases, civil divorce is an approate means to secure the finachial support that you husband is obligated to give you as his wife." Btw is a Bishop did not say this and the next week the DV victim ended up dead, he is probs getting sued.
@MsMelChen Civilian non-constable managing to latch on to the met like many others in the new labour years with a social science background and activist bent. Not a lawyer, not a detective, her analysis was not based on individual crimes or investigations, just patterns in group data sets.
@mtracey The jury could still have substituted for a conviction on either second-degree murder or manslaughter if they agreed in deliberations. Instead, 11 crazy jurors wanted to acquit
Being unwell alone is not a defence.
The test is whether a mental disease left her unable to understand it was wrong or to stop herself. Distress is not that. Also she was not simply “shouting for help.” She left inpatient care after a few days and turned down higher-level treatment that included talking therapy. Seeking help on her own terms is not the same as having no choice.
@Telegraph And when you are 60 and don't have money, you will look at those who have saved, say it is unfair and vote for the state to tax them and give it to you.
You are incorrect, Canada’s infanticide law (Criminal Code s. 233) is not a “no charges” rule and would not have stopped the Clancy case. It only applies when a mother kills her own child under one year old while her mind is disturbed from birth or lactation. Maximum sentence is five years. It is a lesser offence, not an exemption.Clancy’s children were 5, 3, and 8 months. Infanticide could only possibly apply to the baby. The two older children would still be murder (or manslaughter). She would have been charged. A trial would still have happened.The law was influenced by the UK Infanticide Act 1938, but Canada passed its own version in 1948. It does not cover older children and it is not a full insanity acquittal.“Wouldn’t even have been charged” is simply wrong.
To put it simply the DMO (gov) still has to actually sell the gilts at an auction. The DMO can offer the gilts at a 0.1% yield if they like, does not mean anyone will buy them. You say 4%, so lets put if like this, if the gov says "give us £100 and in a year we give you a £4 yield and the £100 back" but at the same time somone in the secondry market is selling the same gov back bonds but they say "give me £90 and in a year I will give you £4 plus £90. Both investments buy the same profit (£4), but one only costs £90. No sane person would pay £100 for the primary auction if the same yield can be brought for £90
Malcolm, I really think it is you who does not understand this. The Gov Debt Management Office sells the Gilts via auction, if you think the established market price of the secondary market is not the main driver of the primary auction price, then you are on another planet. Even if no new spending was announced, historic debt constantly needs refinancing in chunks, meaning that if the yield stays high, that is what the effective national interest rate on debt will be.
So yield of Gov bonds set by treasuy, intrest is set by BoE with a mandate to control infaltion, it is not a standalone choice because their hands are tied when inflation is high due to money printing or excess borrowing. If markets even sniff the possibility of debasement you are forced for give a high coupon rate and BoE is forced to raise intrest in order to counter this narrative.
@RegenerationEX Wrong boomer. The coupon rate (yield) for new issue UK gov bonds is set by Debt Management Office an executive ageny of HM treasury not the Bank of England. DMO needs to set a yield at a rate markets will accept, overwise no one buys them and the gov cant pay its bills.
Hitler had a testicular shot off in combat and got his country's version of the medal of Honour for this, not justification probs something that contributed to fucking his head. Clancy had kids she asked for and a husband that did morning and bed routine, paid for her to stay at home and paid for a nanny.
you are a very dumb man. Firstly, this is a specific offence to cause a disturbance like this in Church, which has a two-month sentence. Secondly, I can link you to a Reform UK Facebook account post asking for bell ringing volunteers at this church for a regular Saturday practice.
https://t.co/2R1VYMw2Ae
https://t.co/AmmX0cDb2b
https://t.co/HhDMVMrlkI
@CodyManners2 if this is true please link to the burned mom's fundraiser if it is still going? I am very upset about the people exhonouring Lindsay Clancy, but we become as bad ourselves if we only go down negative rabbit holes, and the best way to win is by doing something positive
The spinal cord injury she sustained from jumping out the second-story window (which left her paralysed from the waist down) disrupted the pathways that allow the hypothalamus to regulate body temperature. As a result, her blood vessels below the injury level could not constrict to conserve heat the way they normally would in the cold, and she was also unable to shiver. Combined with blood loss, shock, wet clothing, and lying motionless on frozen ground, this caused her core temperature to drop much more rapidly than it would have in a person without a spinal cord injury.
@Stillupunk@factsdontlie10 I have, whenever the prosecution says anything to cross-examine any witness, even on a factual none emotional thing, she gives them this weird, unblinking, cold death glare. So, no compassion or regret in those eyes, just cold contempt that people dare question her narrative.
@Sam641866422774@factsdontlie10 Bias the jury to imply that she is ill which is what the case is about, like an ambulance chaser wearing a neck brace to court. Have her in the same van as every gang banger or any other defendant goes to court in.