No compensation for 8 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit and the police never found Jill Dando’s actual killer:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/09/barry-george-loses-fight-jill-dando-compensation

is this justice?

I don’t know the subject matter and not read the article.

But feel the need to post for no good reason.

No compensation for 8 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit and the police never found Jill Dando’s actual killer:

Um, where does it say he

A: Didn’t commit the crime?

and/or

B: Wasn’t the actual killer?

Um, where does it say he

A: Didn’t commit the crime?

and/or

B: Wasn’t the actual killer?

where does it it say he did?

Um, where does it say he

A: Didn’t commit the crime?

and/or

B: Wasn’t the actual killer?

Poor troll, or are you just thick? what do you think terms like “unsafe conviction” or “miscarriage of justice” mean?

Um, where does it say he

A: Didn’t commit the crime?

and/or

B: Wasn’t the actual killer?

“Um”, At his retrial in 2008 when he was acquitted obviously.

Um, where does it say he

A: Didn’t commit the crime?

and/or

B: Wasn’t the actual killer?

Retrial made it rather clear that he simply couldn’t have been there at the time of the murder, and iirc he was not picked out of id parade by the witnesses that saw what was likely to have been the killer leaving the scene.

I suppose with the word count, this article presupposes that his acquittal was the right decision, and that he was neither the killer nor committed murder and instead concentrates on the story that he is “not innocent enough” for compensation.

IMHO the real story here is that Barry George does have a rather alarming criminal record (of things he clearly did do), and raises the debate of whether it is a good use of public funds or morally right to compensate someone who in the rest of their life did cause such harm and misery to others (just not Jill Dando!) and with such a large criminal record.

Is there normally compensation?

Beggars belief in either case, losing 8 years of time is bad enough, let alone the psychological issues.

Yes that may be the bit where all that was said.

the original ruling is thus

On the 11th May 2011 in a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court defined “miscarriage of justice” as evidence “so undermined that no conviction could possibly be based upon it”. This decision cleared the way for Georges solicitor, Nicholas Baird, to request the then Justice Secretary Ken Clarke “consider afresh” George’s claim for compensation applying the new test set out by the Court.[28] The claim was heard in the High Court; however in their summing up, judges Lord Justice Beatson and Mr Justice Irwin said: “There was indeed a case upon which a reasonable jury properly directed could have convicted the claimant of murder”, and on the strength of this, denied George compensation for wrongful incarceration.[29]

Whilst I get the point however well meaning we were the decison we made was wrong and weimprisoned someone innocent and basically ruined his life. He deserves enough to make a decent fresh start as we have now overturned that decision.

Agreed Junky, there must be so few of these cases the costs would be immaterial.

You are either legally innocent or guilty. There is no in between.

How sad the entire point of the justice system can be undermined by a judge with no understanding of the value of defined legal process to society or individuals.

OK, you know me, there is perhaps more to this than meets the eye…

bonus points if anyone can link this with another story in the news today?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23244577

Is there normally compensation?

Where an innocent person is jailed, compensation can be paid, BUT HM Prisons claim part of it as a charge for B&B. After all, you had no right to that free room and board

Go to the E C H R? It must be the busiest gravy train out there, thought he would already be on it to be honest

OK, you know me, there is perhaps more to this than meets the eye…

bonus points if anyone can link this with another story in the news today?

What’s this, a game of formulate your own conspiracy theory with today’s available news items ?

Not wanting to give too much away at this stage, but this is a BIGGIE and there are 2 avenues you can pursue…

Not wanting to give too much away at this stage,

why not ?
do you have secret information thats not available to anyone else ?

but this is a BIGGIE and there are 2 avenues you can pursue…

Yeah yeah, she was killed by Jimmy Savile and Cliff Richard right ?

(Or something like that anyway)

but this is a BIGGIE

Aren’t they all ?

You gave the impression that all your previous ones were huge conspiracies.

Damn, you’re sharp this evening neal!!

Lets not forget the vocation of her fiance…

Aren’t they all ?

You gave the impression that all your previous ones were huge conspiracies.

Maybe I’m just a drama queen 😀 hmm, speaking of queens

Damn, you’re sharp this evening neal!!

Just because I know what your thinking, doesn’t mean I don’t still think its all bollx 😉

Are you sure though… how do you know these tantalising snippets of monumental scandal which aren’t widely publicized if you don’t have some degree of interest… admit it, you’re curious 😉

When you posted your link above, I googled

“Barry George Operation Fernbridge”

Hardly rocket science or brain surgery is it.

What, proving your blatant curiousity?

admit it, you’re curious

I don’t know about nealglover but I’m happy to admit that I’m curious concerning what the **** goes through your head.

And I’m already looking forward to tomorrow’s conspiracy theory, before I’ve even understood what today’s is.

You are either legally innocent or guilty. There is no in between.

Well Scotland has Not Proven, which is a sort of in between.

What, proving your blatant curiousity?

I’m curious to know what the ridiculously gullible are lapping up this week yes.

It’s a source of amusement to me.

And for that, I thank you.

jivehoneyjive – Member

OK, you know me, there is perhaps more to this than meets the eye…

bonus points if anyone can link this with another story in the news today?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23244577

You know, I’m beginning to find your posts quite offensive, which I suspect is your intention.

So, why were you…..

Not wanting to give too much away at this stage,

When its “information” that’s easily available to anyone who can google four words 🙄

Did you just want to sound important ?

If you do a mutated spoonerism of Jill Dando you get Jan Dildo. For some reason this slays me every time… 😀

Op – you can take the foot off the gas, you have the troll of the day award in the bag…

I have no intention of offending, however, given that Jill Dando had close links to both Cliff Richard and the Royal Family, and both have links to the Elm Guest House scandal, which also has links to Jimmy Savile (Thatcher n all), I certainly think it is information which should be widely available for folk to investigate themselves.

So, why were you…..

Not wanting to give too much away at this stage,

When its “information” that’s easily available to anyone who can google four words

Did you just want to sound important ?

Guided discovery innit… also of such monumental magnitude that better to discover in small chunks than be confronted by a daunting earth shattering asteroid of truth.

investigate themselves.

You are kasaeea (and the sunshine band) and I claim my signed fake moon landing photo.

I think the moon landing was legit

also of such monumental magnitude that better to discover in small chunks than be confronted by a daunting earth shattering asteroid of truth.

Thanks you for being so careful with my fragile grip on reality

Err, my curiosity got the better of me, one significant flaw in the reasoning is surely you’d pay him off to not raise any media attention? Tinternet foil hats ll round?

Err, my curiosity got the better of me, one significant flaw in the reasoning is surely you’d pay him off to not raise any media attention?

Thats a fair point, however, it could be that by labelling Barry George ‘not innocent enough’ is a means of raising sufficient doubt to lead people to believe he may be guilty but there was simply insufficient evidence to make the charge stick.

Poor troll, or are you just thick? what do you think terms like “unsafe conviction” or “miscarriage of justice” mean?

I think they mean that the conviction was unsafe, and that justice was not done. Neither are indicative of actual guilt though. What on earth did you think they meant? 😯

You might want to look up the definition of ‘thick’ buddy. 😉 And a little tip I learnt when I was seven; best not to be cocky when you’re in the wrong. 🙂

Retrial made it rather clear that he simply couldn’t have been there at the time of the murder…

Really? That’s not my understanding. Link?

You are kasaeea (and the sunshine band) and I claim my signed fake moon landing photo.

It’s an interesting theory (see what I did there) but our stats would suggest not.

but our stats would suggest not.

108% of stats are made up on the spot.

He was innocent of the murder charge but it wasnt an innocent life wasted for 8yrs.