Comments by "Iazzaboyce" (@Iazzaboyce) on "Daily Mail World" channel.

  1.  @seamusoflatcap  You say he failed to maintain the speedboat, what law was contravened and what maintenance failing caused the accident? Why was it his responsibility she should wear a life jacket? There is no legal requirement for an adult to wear a life jacket in a speedboat. Why was it his responsibility for her to use a kill-chord when there is no legal requirement to use a kill-chord in a speedboat? Why should he not have allowed her to drive a speedboat when it was legal for her to do so and legal for him to allow her to do so? It seems they were both under the influence of alcohol. But, I fail to see how this or any of the other things you mention results in one of them being guilty of manslaughter.
    1
  2.  @seamusoflatcap  "Why is it his responsibility? He is the owner!!" ... So you are saying, if they had used a different boat, in exactly the same condition, without the owners permission and the exact same events had occured, then Shepherd would be innocent and the owner would be guilty of manslaughter... Yes, it's probably against some law to be driving a speedboat drunk which is why she shouldn't have been doing so. I have sympathy for her and her family, but there has to be reasonable limits to personal liability and whilst it is true if she had not encountered Shepherd she would probably be alive - that fact does not make him responsible for her poor choices or poor actions. If new evidence proves that Shepherd was driving the speedboat too fast, whilst drunk - then that would be a different matter.
    1
  3.  @seamusoflatcap  So, what are these 'faults' you keep on mentioning?
    1
  4.  @seamusoflatcap “Shepherd would not be guilty of manslaughter because it would not be a reasonable assumption to say he would be aware of any faults.” So here you clearly state Shepherd is guilty solely on the basis of knowledge of faults. Yet, there is no evidence these faults have caused the boat to tip over and the court did not find so. In reality, a speedboat comprises an engine and steering mechanism if these components are faulty the speedboat cannot be operated. I doubt there is evidence to show he believed the speedboat to be mechanically unsafe. “He then knowingly let an inexperienced drunk woman take control of the boat. A boat that he knew to be faulty.” There is no legal requirement to have experience to drive a speedboat and he was supervising her driving. It seems they were both drunk. “A faulty boat that he drove at more than twice the speed limit.” So, Do you mean a very 'functional' ‘faulty' boat? The court accepted evidence that, he was not driving at the time of the accident. “There is evidence that Shepherd was driving the boat too fast.” The court accepted evidence that, he was not driving at the time of the accident. “witnesses from Lambeth Fire River service, footage from Charlotte's mobile as he was driving and not her.” The court accepted evidence that he was not driving at the time of the accident. “There is, incidentally, a witness who claims she saw Shepherd driving the boat alone, "chugging along" and peering into the water, it then veered to the bank and crashed.” The court accepted evidence that he was not driving at the time of the accident. “Charlotte's mother has previously claimed that the crash was deliberately done by Shepherd covering up her daughter's death.” She was not a witness to the scene and cannot give such evidence. The court accepted evidence that he was not driving at the time of the accident. “I dismissed it as her grief taking over but, with this other witness, it begs a question : did Shepherd lie when he said Charlotte was driving at the time of the crash?” The court accepted evidence that he was not driving at the time of the accident. We're going around in circles here with me repeating the same points over and over again yet you don't seem to grasp them.” You are the one going around in circles – even making wild assertions that you cannot prove. “This is the second strange scenario you've come up with. You say you've never said that you believe Shepherd to be innocent, yet you ignore every piece of known evidence that points to his guilt, you ignore the decision of the jury to find him guilty, you believe his unsubstantiated claim that Charlotte was driving, and you believe he has no responsibility for the safety of his passenger. You are wilfully ignorant.” I have introduced scenarios to demonstrate why I believe the law has been applied wrongly. It is you that is incapable of understanding this. I have not ignored any evidence - you have introduced supposition. I have said I believe he is not innocent, but I do not believe he is guilty of manslaughter. A High Court Judge has allowed an appeal of the original conviction based on the law being wrongly applied - I would assume that, a person does not become a High Court Judge without knowing something about the law.
    1
  5. It's apparent that you don't understand the matters of law that are in question. In relation to faults causing the crash you state: “It is entirely possible” and then: “I can't say they did nor can you say they didn't” however, this does not meet the standard of proof required. So, according to your own statements a court should not find him guilty on that evidence. I have attempted to explain the conviction rests on a presumption he had a ‘duty of care’ to her and failed in this duty by gross negligence. You argue he did owe her a duty of care, because he was the owner and had some experience, but have stated: “You don't need a qualification to know when there's a fault especially an obvious one such as the faulty steering.” Exactly! You have established that he had no more reason than her to identify any fault or understand any potential danger resulting from any fault. In relation to his ‘experience’ you state: “He's the one who has owned the boat for some time and made a number of trips in it, so he's the one with experience of operating boat & that one in particular (with the faults he must have known about) many times.” So, you are really confirming that he had used the speedboat and not seen any potential danger, as one would assume he wouldn't place his own life in danger. I think the court of appeal must find he had no duty of care to her over or above driving drunk at excessive speed for the conditions, but that he had done so without consequence, as the boat had crashed when she was driving.
    1
  6.  @seamusoflatcap  I think it'd obvious that you are the one that has embarrassed himself. You have made one contradiction after another - you don't even understand the standard of proof used is based on 'probability' not "possibility" only a complete ignoramus would write such a thing. Shepherd's legal team has said the appeal will be based on legal errors made during the trial. It's clear you do not have sufficient understanding of law to discuss the issues involved.
    1
  7.  @seamusoflatcap  I'm not going to go through everything you have written, so I will just deal with the first statements you made: "To all those trying to place some or all of the blame on Charlotte Brown, here's a couple of things to bear in mind." "She can't give her version of events." "The court saw all the evidence, you haven't, and the jury found him guilty." In your first two statements you are clearly implying there is important evidence that has not come to light because Charlotte had died, and this should be considered in apportioning blame . You then state that the court heard 'all' of the evidence which plainly, is a contradiction. As I pointed out you appear to be suggesting someone should invent evidence on her behalf.
    1
  8.  @seamusoflatcap  OK so let's expose the contradiction in your subsequent comment where you state: "The point is that we only have Shepherd's version of events. Which he chose not to give in court but ran away instead. The court didn't hear his oral evidence. Who's[sic] fault was that? Shepherd had the opportunity to defend himself but chose not to. Instead, he ran away. If he had stood trial, he could have been questioned in court. His behaviour may not alter the facts of the incident but it does point towards his guilt regarding him being responsible." So, here you are clearly arguing that Shepherd not being questioned in court and not giving oral evidence in court is reason to presume he was responsible. The contradiction of course, is that you had previously argued that Charlotte not giving evidence in court was reason to presume she was not responsible.
    1
  9.  Alan Gould  You tell us - you mentioned it.
    1
  10. We had a referendum in 1975 - so I'm up for having another one in 2057.
    1
  11. It's what most people voted for - can't give power over your country to foreigners when the majority want to be independent.
    1
  12. Where's your evidence that "People would like a second referendum"? Just because Remoaners call it a 'people's vote' doesn't mean the people actually want a second referendum. There was a march in London and only 10 000 turned up - Just because Remoaners say there was 100 000 doesn't make it true. Open Britain have been running a petition for a second referendum - only 308 000 have signed (over 500 000 signed a petition to free Tommy Robinson)... So where's your actual evidence? In reality, if the British people were forced to vote on a second in/out referendum the outcome would be over 70% for out.
    1
  13. If you are born into the Royal Family there is an understanding, if you will not do the role, you go away, keep your head down and stay quiet. Harry and Meghan are openly challenging the UK Government and Monarch as to what that role should be, which is absurd and perverse. It appears born out of the worst of human nature and makes for a very ugly spectacle. The narcissism, entitlement, malice, resentment, disloyalty, complete absence of decorum, is astounding. I don't see any way out of this hole they're busy digging themselves into - it appears they will not like the increasing shade and isolation and this will cause them to dig even deeper.
    1
  14. Another 'Welsh windbag' wanting a ride on the EU gravy train! Well, 'Owen the EU' the rest of us don't want to pay for it!
    1
  15. That makes no sense - why do you think an abductor would touch or take her phone? So, she could call 999? So, her phone location could be traced? Or so, the abductor's prints/DNA could be found on the phone?
    1
  16. I don't think they want an (in/out) as they know they will lose. They really want an (out no deal/out stay in Single Market) as they think they can get over this line with project fear and keep open the possibility of the UK being rejoined as a member state.
    1
  17. +MoRe Did you vote or were you too clever?
    1
  18.  @phildiamond3627  Only fools claim to know the future... Life is about weighing up the knowns and being prepared for the unknowns.
    1
  19.  @phildiamond3627  Leaving the EU is about the future and that hasn't happened yet.
    1
  20. +Des Oliver My mistake - I thought you said the EC&SC became the EEC' (that the UK joined in 1973 without a referendum and consequential to a manifesto promise not to join).
    1
  21. +Des Oliver The Conservative (Heath) government elected in 1970 on a manifesto promise not to join the UK to the EEC ("negotiate no more no less") joined the UK to the EEC. The Labour government (Wilson) elected1974 gave the people an 'in/out' referendum in 1975.
    1
  22. It is politicians like Lammy ignoring the people that got us into this mess, as there has never been any evidence the British people wanted to be part of a united states of Europe.
    1
  23. +Des Oliver Accepted definition of imperialism: "a policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means" Remain slogans 'bigger' 'stronger' the British people don’t want empire - we did that and found out nations prefer to control their own destiny. "What aspects of my culture have I been prevented from engaging in?" Answer: Living in a sovereign land. There was much less unemployment in the 1970s - you could leave a job and walk into another on the same day. The term 'long term unemployed' was not used. This is what I meant by the workforce feeling 'secure'. The miners strike of the 1980s came about because the government decided to import cheaper coal from the EEC (that was the 'European Coal and Steel Community'). Yes, we get lots of 'sweeties' of the 'nice' people at the EU - unlike you I'm not daft enough to help them 'find a lost puppy' in the woods.
    1
  24. +Des Oliver What would you be saying to those wishing to overturn the referendum result had the result been 52% to Remain? I would suggest it would be something like this: 'We had the exhaustive debate, the vote was conducted in a fair way, the time for arguments has passed and it's now time to accept the democratic will of the people and go forward as a united nation... Am I right?
    1
  25.  @rus1616  Think of 'holding a gun' as 'sitting in the driver's seat of a car' - a mechanically perfect car and a mechanically perfect gun are both deadly weapons if not operated safely.
    1
  26.  @almac9203  Would an actor be asked to drive a car on a public road if the actor did not know how to drive a car? If I was to hand you a gun and tell you it was not loaded and you pulled the trigger and killed an innocent person - what, you think you're going to tell the cops it was all my fault and you are going to walk free? Murder and manslaughter laws don't disappear when movies are being made. The Brandon Lee case was different, because the gun was correctly loaded with blank ammunition which fired a bullet logged in the barrel. Prosecutors believed that a jury would find it reasonable to have missed the problem.
    1
  27.  @almac9203  An actor on a movie set would not be expected to drive a car unless that actor had training. And once any person sits in the driving seat of a car that person becomes responsible for the car and any consequences that might result from them operating or neglecting to operate the controls. You are conflating two separate issues 'mechanical repair' and 'operation'. When you get in the driver seat of a mechanically perfect car you are responsible to operate the controls safely. The same when you pick up a mechanically perfect revolver. You must satisfy yourself as to what is in each chamber. The 'ammunition' 'loading mechanism' 'safety' 'hammer' 'trigger' 'ejector' are the 'controls' of a revolver. In your 'car/revolver' analogy, this is the equivalent of an actor getting into a car parked on a hill and because someone had said the car was 'mechanically perfect' the actor released the handbrake and the car rolled into two people killing one and injuring the other. 'Negligent car use' and 'negligent gun use' - but really a car and a gun are two different things.
    1
  28.  @almac9203  Every gun has a 'safety issue' because guns like the one used by Alec Baldwin to kill Halyna Hutchins are designed manufactured and sold to kill people. Nowhere in established gun protocol does it suggest the gun user is able to rely on someone else to be satisfied whether the gun is loaded with deadly ammunition. In short, a person should not pick up a gun, point it at people and pull the trigger on the basis someone else said the gun was loaded with blanks.
    1
  29.  @almac9203  I don't think the law is concerned about the world of making movies - the law is only concerned when a person is shot dead. When was 'I didn't think the gun was loaded' ever a defence for shooting a person dead?
    1
  30.  @almac9203  So why would it 'never cross your mind to check a gun' when there have been '40 or so accidental shootings on movie sets since 1990'?
    1
  31.  @rus1616  In the US there are more guns than cars - so your reasoning and conclusion is nonsense.
    1
  32.  @rus1616  Actually, if you read the comments I did not introduce the car. There are plenty of people found guilty by a court because they caused death by reckless driving. It is important to understand that the gun used by AB was not faulty. Unfortunately, the gun worked as it was designed to work. The faulty element was the person operating the gun. The person holding the gun is the person responsible not to point the gun at any person unless circumstances demand warning/shooting a person. an exception might be if the person holding the gun is 100% certain the gun is not dangerous. It is simply not possible to be 100% certain a gun is not dangerous based on the word of another person.
    1
  33.  @solairethesunacolyte5341  The car thing is irrelevant because no car was involved - not even a mechanic.
    1
  34. To be fair they wasn't going to find a sane person to take Meghan's side.
    1
  35. Most Remain voters are normal and accept the democratic result, but the establishment does not and out of 16 million Remain voters 5% of people affected by mental disorder equates to .8 million.
    1
  36. The close up drone images (of the start of the march) show the march is approx 20 people wide, therefore squares the width/length of the march contain approx 20x20=400 people. The high altitude images of the entire march show there are at most 20 such squares (10 000 people), however when allowances are made for clear variance in crowd intensity the actual number is around 8 000 people.
    1
  37. We'll see on Saturday - The march for a 'people's vote' appears to be mainly elites who don't like what the people already voted for.
    1
  38. If you try harder - you might remember you wasn't running the country.
    1
  39.  @jakemitchell2134  What 'facts' were you not aware of at the 2016 referendum?
    1
  40. First UK prime minister since Anthony Eden to reflect the visceral wish of the UK people to be a sovereign nation. "If you drive a nation to adopt procedures which run counter to its instincts, you weaken and may destroy the motive force of its action? You will realise that I am speaking of the frequent suggestions that the United Kingdom should join a federation on the continent of Europe. This is something which we know, in our bones, we cannot do." (Anthony Eden)
    1
  41.  @dog6647  Wales is neither a 'county' or a 'city'.
    1
  42. She should put her favourite clown outfit on, call a press conference, squirt water on the press from a trick lapel flower and resign! As she's clearly a national embarrassment! "Hello! I'm Theresa May and I really should have been a headmistress in an all-girls (strictly fee paying) school. But, Instead I've devoted my life to conning the British people out of their right to self determination. There is no evidence the British people ever wanted this, but my very wealthy husband and I believed we knew best."
    1
  43. There can be no sympathy for Harry - if he wants to walk away he should shut up - he's only rich and famous, because he was born Royal - he has never done anything to give reason to look up to him. He wants to turn his back and rubbish the UK and monarchy and thinks we should all worship him and his nasty wife.
    1
  44.  @ChristianIce  Actually, we're tired of the EU which is why we have voted to get out. The people have agreed, but unfortunately, we have a parliament that does not reflect the people. This will change and your forced laughter will be exposed as the envy it truly is.
    1
  45. The close up drone images (of the start of the march) show the march is approx 20 people wide, therefore squares the width/length of the march contain approx 20x20=400 people. The high altitude images of the entire march show there are at most 20 such squares (10 000 people), however when allowances are made for clear variance in crowd intensity the actual number is around 8 000 people.
    1
  46. Speaking as a person with over 40 years DIY experience - the bolts keeping the front on could have been bigger...
    1
  47. He waited for the applause after 'tough' so - appears rehearsed with supporters almost forgetting to clap...
    1
  48. Why does taking a political stance against guns and making movies that glorify guns make him a hypocrite? How do you suggest he makes his millions?
    1
  49. Most of those marchers are from the million EU27 citizens living in London.
    1
  50. It's early days - the UK establishment 'EU vision' is in its death throes. Broadly, All of the 52% want the hard Brexit they voted for, half of the 48% think Brexit should be what the winning side voted for and the other 24% want to stay in the EU which cannot happen. In the end the public will simply not allow politicians to defy the will of the people - and yes, it will have be worth it.
    1