On 10 Sep, 17:18, Doug
riseup.net> wrote:> 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:
>
>>>>>>>>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.
>
>
>>> 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. Â You really haven't got a clue have you, Gollum?
>> The Adomako case has *nothing whatsoever* to do with corporate
>> manslaughter. Â It is, as I have said, the leading case on "indiduals
>> being held accountable for their actions" in respect of killings
>> through gross negligence. Â Nor does the wiki article I referred you to
>> mention corporate manslaughter except in passing. Â 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. Â 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?
Fuck, Gollum, I knew you were dumb but this really takes the biscuit.
If you tried actually reading Adomako, or anything other than the
first result from a google search, you would see that the decision has
nothing to do with corporate manslaughter, and everything to do with
individual liability for manslaughter by gross negligence. I'll say
it again - it is the *leading case* in English law on manslaughter by
gross negligence.
As you are obviously entirely incapable of even carrying out the most
basic searches, I'll do it for you. Here is the House of Lords'
judgment in Adomako:
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1994/6.html
Try searching through it for "corporate". They don't use the word
once (although they do use the word incorporate).
Now, try actually reading it. You'll see that there is no immunity
for doctors - the judges uphold a doctor's conviction for
manslaughter.
Fuck, you really, really are the dumbest cunt who has ever walked this
earth. I'd go so far as to say this is a new DougClassic. How do you
do it, Gollum?
