On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 17:10:20 +0100, Clive 
wrote:

>In message 
>, 
>Doug  writes
>>Which answer to the need for a level playing field and a single law
>>covering all killings regardless of location or weapon?
>So an armed police officer who shoots dead a man carrying a table leg, 
>should get life?

A surgeon who nicks a blood vessel that was hidden in an obese
patients fat ?

Derek

BrianW wrote:

> Go and look up the leading case of R v Adomako.  There's tons of stuff
> on t'internet about it - a starter for ten is
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter_in_English_law), and then
> come back and we can discuss it.

If he does it'll be a first.

BrianW wrote:
> On 7 Sep, 07:43, Doug  wrote:
>> On 6 Sep, 17:48, Derek  wrote:> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 17:10:20 +0100, Clive 
>>> wrote:
>>>> In message
>>>> ,
>>>> Doug  writes
>>>>> Which answer to the need for a level playing field and a single law
>>>>> covering all killings regardless of location or weapon?
>>>> So an armed police officer who shoots dead a man carrying a table leg,
>>>> should get life?
>>> A surgeon who nicks a blood vessel that was hidden in an obese
>>> patients fat ?
>> So is the conclusion that certain people are immune from punishment
>> for killing others, due to the nature of their job?
> 
> <sigh>
> 
> It would help if you knew even the basics of this subject on which you
> like to expound.
> 
> Go and look up the leading case of R v Adomako.  There's tons of stuff
> on t'internet about it - a starter for ten is
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter_in_English_law), and then
> come back and we can discuss it.

Doug, discuss, are you sure?

-- 
Tony the Dragon

In article <5116aa0d-9fa0-45de-9d80-
35c09e4ca05b@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
> On 6 Sep, 17:48, Derek  wrote:
> > On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 17:10:20 +0100, Clive 
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In message
> > >,
> > >Doug  writes
> > >>Which answer to the need for a level playing field and a single law
> > >>covering all killings regardless of location or weapon?
> > >So an armed police officer who shoots dead a man carrying a table leg,
> > >should get life?
> >
> > A surgeon who nicks a blood vessel that was hidden in an obese
> > patients fat ?
> >
> So is the conclusion that certain people are immune from punishment
> for killing others, due to the nature of their job? 

They're immune from punishment if they can prove they followed all laid 
down procedures. Not to be would result in people refusing to do the 
job. Then what? I'll tell you what, you'd find out the true definition 
of anarchy, Doug.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

Doug wrote:
> On 7 Sep, 09:00, BrianW  wrote:
>> On 7 Sep, 07:43, Doug  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 6 Sep, 17:48, Derek  wrote:> On Sat, 6
>>> Sep 2008 17:10:20 +0100, Clive 
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> In message
>>>>> ,
>>>>> Doug  writes
>>>>>> Which answer to the need for a level playing field and a single
>>>>>> law covering all killings regardless of location or weapon?
>>>>> So an armed police officer who shoots dead a man carrying a table
>>>>> leg, should get life?
>>
>>>> A surgeon who nicks a blood vessel that was hidden in an obese
>>>> patients fat ?
>>
>>> So is the conclusion that certain people are immune from punishment
>>> for killing others, due to the nature of their job?
>>
>> <sigh>
>>
> No answer then?
>>
>> It would help if you knew even the basics of this subject on which
>> you
>> like to expound.
>>
> Such as?
>>
>> Go and look up the leading case of R v Adomako. There's tons of stuff
>> on t'internet about it - a starter for ten
>> ishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter_in_English_law), and
>> then come back and we can discuss it.
>
> So what point contained in the source are you struggling to make? Why
> are you so obviously evading the issue?

ROFL yet again Doug show himself to be utterly clueless.

BrianW wrote:
> On 9 Sep, 07:38, Doug  wrote:
>> So what point contained in the source are you struggling to make? Why
>> are you so obviously evading the issue?
>
> Oh, for Christ's sake, Doug, *read the goddamn source I referred you
> to*.  The Adomako case actually concerns a doctor (an anaethetist) who
> was successfully prosecuted for manslaughter arising out of the death
> of a patient in an operation he was overseeing. So, far from being the
> case that doctors are "immune from punishment for killing others", as
> you contend, the leading English case on manslaughter is an example of
> a doctor being punished for killing someone.
>
> So, as ever, not only do you continue your incredible record of being
> 100% wrong, 100% of the time, you have got it spectacularly wrong.
> How do you do it, Duhg?

Obvious innit? It takes years of dedicated training and practise to achieve 
such a level of competence. He was good at getting it wrong back in the 
mid-nineties, he's hardly likely to have lost the ability.

BrianW wrote:
> On 9 Sep, 09:41, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> BrianW wrote:
>>> On 9 Sep, 07:38, Doug  wrote:
>>>> So what point contained in the source are you struggling to make?
>>>> Why are you so obviously evading the issue?
>>
>>> Oh, for Christ's sake, Doug, *read the goddamn source I referred you
>>> to*. The Adomako case actually concerns a doctor (an anaethetist)
>>> who was successfully prosecuted for manslaughter arising out of the
>>> death of a patient in an operation he was overseeing. So, far from
>>> being the case that doctors are "immune from punishment for killing
>>> others", as you contend, the leading English case on manslaughter
>>> is an example of a doctor being punished for killing someone.
>>
>>> So, as ever, not only do you continue your incredible record of
>>> being 100% wrong, 100% of the time, you have got it spectacularly
>>> wrong. How do you do it, Duhg?
>>
>> Obvious innit? It takes years of dedicated training and practise to
>> achieve such a level of competence. He was good at getting it wrong
>> back in the mid-nineties, he's hardly likely to have lost the
>> ability.-
>
> Absolutely, but even with decades of practice most people would not be
> able to get everything so spectacularly wrong.  He has a rare, perhaps
> even unique, gift.

We can but hope.