Free Emma West

**flamingreen** · 03-02-2012, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by longbow64

Not neces e celery,

The problem with student visa's is the Uni's would go ape shyte with the massive loss in attendance. I respect your comments though my friend.

I agree they would make a stink, but I dont think the 'working students' are mainly serious full time university studnets anyway, most of whom either get scholarships or are from well off foriegn families (they couldnt possibly pay the fees otherwise). Its mostly part time studenst who are working, some admitedly at universities doing part tiem degrees, but mostly at colleges and private language schools, improving their English, because they are here to work and become permanent residents.

**longbow64** · 03-02-2012, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by flamingreen

I agree they would make a stink, but I dont think the 'working students' are mainly serious full time university studnets anyway, most of whom either get scholarships or are from well off foriegn families (they couldnt possibly pay the fees otherwise). Its mostly part time studenst who are working, some admitedly at universities doing part tiem degrees, but mostly at colleges and private language schools, improving their English, because they are here to work and become permanent residents.

Yes, I agree.

**longbow64** · 03-02-2012, 06:00 PM

Has anyone else written to Theresa May or the courts abot the Emma West case, if so I would be interested to know. As a matter of interest I would also encourage other people to do so, it's pointless us all debating a way on here if we don't actually do anything about our gripes.

**BCG Jason** · 04-02-2012, 12:19 AM

Go on BVL offer your services as I agree with most of your comments but feel she needs someone with experience of the court system.

**longbow64** · 04-02-2012, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov

Hopefully the blighters will make some mistakes, and they often do, so to lose is not the end of it if they have not followed the procedures properly. It's exactly cases like this where they often screw up because they are acting impulsively rather than rationally. You saw how they failed to record a plea even though she was witnessed making that plea in the Magistrate’s Court. This gives me some hope of them screwing it up. You see the courts these days are not used to being challenged.

If they screw up in recording a verdict, does this allow you to get your case thrown out.

**Baron von Lotsov** · 06-02-2012, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by longbow64

If they screw up in recording a verdict, does this allow you to get your case thrown out.

No but what you do is you have a super sharp counsel and the incompetent prosecution will likely make some stupid mistake in court and the barrister can then use that to imply to the jury that if they are that stupid then how can you rely on their judgment to bring this case to trial. The jury often see the establishment as right by virtue of being the establishment, so you use their foul-ups to shatter this illusion. There are mistakes that can get the case thrown out though, such as if the prosecution break the rules of evidence in some way. Sometimes though the judge in these cases can order a retrial. The system is designed for the sole purpose of delivering justice, so that is why you get retrials and very angry judges when they foul up. The preferred situation is for the jury to acquit because their stupidity raises sufficient doubt in their minds.

**dloper** · 07-02-2012, 12:08 AM

Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov

No but what you do is you have a super sharp counsel and the incompetent prosecution will likely make some stupid mistake in court and the barrister can then use that to imply to the jury that if they are that stupid then how can you rely on their judgment to bring this case to trial. The jury often see the establishment as right by virtue of being the establishment, so you use their foul-ups to shatter this illusion. There are mistakes that can get the case thrown out though, such as if the prosecution break the rules of evidence in some way. Sometimes though the judge in these cases can order a retrial. The system is designed for the sole purpose of delivering justice, so that is why you get retrials and very angry judges when they foul up. The preferred situation is for the jury to acquit because their stupidity raises sufficient doubt in their minds.

What? Are you trying to impy that the authorities don't know best? This is the kind of seditious talk that's bringing this country to it's knees!

How dare you try to bring our most trusted and venerable institutions into disrepute!

The very idea that a court, judge, or prosecutor might have anything other than the interests of justice at heart is unthinkable.

If I had my way...

**angelman** · 07-02-2012, 05:28 PM

Here's another lady that has done an "Emma West". As an aside, I wonder how many of these immigrants find this offensive and how much is fake indignation. What would you say 5%:95%?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16932948

**Baron von Lotsov** · 08-02-2012, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by angelman

Here's another lady that has done an "Emma West". As an aside, I wonder how many of these immigrants find this offensive and how much is fake indignation. What would you say 5%:95%?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16932948

This is getting worse than the Nazis.

The woman remains in police custody.