> 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:

>

>>>>>>>>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 ...

>

>> 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?-