> On 10 Sep, 15:46, Doug riseup.net> wrote:
>
>
>

>> On 7 Sep, 09:00, BrianW hotmail.com> wrote:

>

>>> On 7 Sep, 07:43, Doug riseup.net> wrote:

>

>>>> On 6 Sep, 17:48, Derek miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote:> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 17:10:20 +0100, Clive yewbank.demon.co.uk>

>>>>> wrote:

>

>>>>>>In message
>>>>>><67f43099-3229-44f2-a7f1-c48015a9e...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>Doug riseup.net> 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?

>

>>>

>

>>> 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 ishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter_in_English_law), and then
>>> come back and we can discuss it.

>

>> Why are you confusing the issue with corporate manslaughter? This is
>> about indiduals being held accountable for their actions not
>> companies. Do try to keep up.

>
> Oh dear, oh dear.  You really haven't got a clue have you, Gollum?
> The Adomako case has *nothing whatsoever* to do with corporate
> manslaughter.  It is, as I have said, the leading case on "indiduals
> being held accountable for their actions" in respect of killings
> through gross negligence.  Nor does the wiki article I referred you to
> mention corporate manslaughter except in passing.  You have obviously
> neither read the wiki article nor looked into (or know anything about)
> Adomako at all, and as such are arguing from a point of complete and
> total ignorance.  So no change there then ...
>