> On 10 Sep, 16:29, BrianW hotmail.com> wrote:

>> 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-

>>>>>>>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 ...
>>

> You are still completely wrong, Blackhead. Multiple searches link the
> Adomako case with corporate manslaughter. Why don't you just give it a
> try?