Teenager guilty of murder.

[placemats]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/23/teenager-guilty-baby-herefordshire-hide-pregnancy-paris-mayo

Apart from the fact that she was raped, if consent to sex is to be a legal term, I find the prosecutions allegations appalling.

'But the prosecution alleged Mayo must have known she was pregnant but chose to deliberately conceal it because she was always planning to kill the baby.'

Perhaps Mayo didn't get early abortion help she needed. I know of one woman, who had 3 previous children, who didn't realise she was pregnant, thought it was early menopause until 4 weeks before her due date. However to allege she was always planning to kill the baby is a step too far. It intimates that those in authority know this child's mind.

Yes, we know, the only valid interpretation is that of a lower court jury, who are according to you infallible. You’ve made this point over and over and over and over. Give it a rest.

Agree entirely. It displays a mindset that is 'my way or the highway'.

Hi op, you said worse to me than what pp said about 'shriekers'. You said I have no empathy and you feel sorry for my child because I disagreed respectfully on this thread and voiced a perfectly normal opinion...

I don’t. I’m not calling them shriekers because they gave different views. I’m calling them shriekers because they’re shriekers.

you have misrepresented me consistently (in fairness, this may be because you are genuinely incapable of understanding). Take your own advice.

She was represented by a KC at trial. I imagine that was publicly funded; they do not appear to be people who could afford such representation themselves. That funding will cover advice on and representation at an appeal

Yes, @placemats thank you, I think there should be a new thread in case there are any more articles written about this case, or in case there is an appeal.

Iwasafool · Today 12:38

So he accepts she could be lying but people on here, who have never met her, are determined she wasn't

Just like you or I could be lying about our opinions on this thread.

In the circs, “shriekers” seems pretty mild as insults go.

I've started a new thread.

placemats · Today 14:56
I've started a new thread.

Thank you.

I am pretty sure the misrepresentation has flowed in the opposite direction with your claiming I was saying that lower court/jury decision are binding and other desperate measures to avoid admitting you were completely mistaken regarding the doctrine of precedent including persuasive precedents despite claiming to be a lawyer of 25yrs experience.

If we are shrieking, then you are lowing.

you were insisting upthread that you hadn’t tried to argue that jury decisions are binding. Now you seem to be arguing they are.
I wouldn’t be applying for law school just yet, if I were you.

I wouldn’t normally bother reporting someone as silly as you, but I think calling someone a cow is not quite cricket. So I have.

FFS, you cannot be what you say you are. Persuasive precedents according to the doctrine of precedence are nonbinding. Any law student would know this much less a lawyer of 25yrs experience. I’ve posted the legal texts defining and explaining this to you and yet you still persist with your gross ignorance of the doctrine of precedence.

Why? We all know bats shriek, so you called us batty and I’m calling you bovine. If you don’t like receiving it, don’t dish it out.

Tell me what any of that has to do with a jury verdict - on the facts.

And it’s precedent, by the way.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=knulk0uMp2A

Bats are quite intelligent animals. Not what I had in mind at all.

You should know.

Cows are smarter than bats according to science.

Yah, autocorrect

but you appear so confident, so you must too. What’s the answer?

I’ll give you a little clue; five letters, starts with z and ends with h 😂