KNOW YOUR RIGHTS’s profile

Not too sure what I believe with this one. the evidence is against is circumstantial and his own family albeit adoptive family provided the evidence against him ie weeks after the murders had taken place they found a silencer in a cupboard. they then inherited everything.

also, the police apparently ballsed up the crime scene and moved things about. which they deny, but then again the police do have a history of lying / changing events to suit them / cover their own mistakes.

Basically, if he was to be prosecuted again today for the same crime would he go to prison? Probably not as the silencer would not be permitted as evidence as it was found by family members who stood to inherit everything weeks after the murder and the call to the police would have been recorded.

The prosecutions case was based on the phone call that was made to him and that there was no blood on the handset and that there was no record of the call to the police, although the defensive team argued there was evidence to the contrary.

I would say he would not be prosecuted today/ would be found not guilty which would equal a massive miscarriage of justice by any standard.
Any other thoughts on this. ?

TA

I was a young teenager I think, I remember bits about it but as a kid you never take any notice.

I started refusing to pay my tv licence when I found out they got a loan from the eu. (its meant to be soley funded by us. ) I also highlighted jimmy savile. product placement. advertising on graham norton books and films etc. the head of tv also got a 1.5 million pound pay off after 5 weeks in the job. that's 100k licence money! I wrote my letter to tv licence they said its not up to them and forwarded to bbc. who in turn said I had to write to secratery of state for media and culture. and her secratery got back to me saying they can't get involved with individual cases. so really I still don't know where I stand. but everyday there's more and more reason NOT to pay
blindsyde

It's typical of the duplicitous nature of all contracts engaged in with 'The Authority'. I think TPTB have to lie or trick us into things because if they were honest about what they were doing - nobody would go along with it. They would be lynched the very same day.
Haven't paid tv tax (like it) in nearly five years now. pea

The TV license aka tv Tax isn't neccessary because I have never agreed a contract with the tv for them to broadcast there channels in my home and for me to pay in return. The tv choose to air there channels on my TV, I diddnt ask for them so how can they demand money for them? don't pay it, you're not obligated to disclose any information to them whatsoever. You are not obligated to allow them into your home to check you have a T. V. If they know you have a T. V you are not obligated to tell them if you watch it. They are powerless, they just lead you to believe they have power with the van and fine propaganda. Believe me its optional, i've had a letter saying they won't bother me for 2 years!

Yes that's true. As long as you don't sign anything aswell. Jdog

Yeh edd I remember the vans and everytime me mum seen one in our tenement block she screamed at me "francis turn the telly off quick "lol {Ed001's Note - positive proof that media lies are believed though. After all, no one even thought to question it, they just believed it was true.}

Not required as they can't enter your home to see if you have a tv, also its a service you haven't requested {Ed001's Note - do you remember the old days when they claimed the detector vans could tell if you were watching it? People honestly believed that was true, rather than they just knocked on the doors of every home that didn't have a license and accused them of watching TV without one!}

Hows it not neccessary?

I like your name mate.