Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Cornyn wants out of the EU but has agreed to support the stay in side.

My copy of 'Comrade Corbyn' has arrived. I am expecting an amusing read.

H/S knows because he went around to Jezzer's address knocked on the door and asked for a glass of water.. just in the hope that he might be able to meet his hero.

Haystack

I think you are an 'IN' believer. Yes? Anyhow, you do seem to keep reminding us quite a lot of how the 'In polls' are leading the race.

Got a comment on Lawson's take on things above?

both sides have good arguments, but at the end of the day, you have to make up your own mind which carries the more weight

good bit of tub thumping by nigel lawson, but i feel he rather spoils his argument by getting carried away in his enthusiasm

I will probably vote out. But not for any of the obvious reasons.

My reasons include some of Lawson's.

I'm also going to vote for out as is my wife.

So they tell me too, are most of our neighbours. They are mostly belong to the older generation.

Our EU Membership Fees alone, are £18bn per year or £50m per day. That won't be a full saving to spend on 'things' but it is going to go a hell of a long way towards them when we do come out.

Anything that isn't thoroughly agreed and then written in cast iron on stone can be chucked out and then differently agreed and then be rewritten against our best interests - all after we've had a Referendum and foolishly voted to stay in.

Manuel,

With the neocons, fascists, cons, UKIP and BNP in self-destruct mode, I would think the most sensible thing for Corbyn to do is sit back and watch the chaos and self-destruction Cameron has provoked for the Con party.

(All out of self-interest and glory.)

Interesting to see how low a profile Osborne is keeping and how Boris distances himself.

Corbyn interests me, but I hope that the infantile infighting between the disappointed members of the labour "elite" settles down and the energy is spent of formulating sensible ongoing economic and political policies.

I think if the UK, whether or without devolution, leaves the EU the chaos left will need long-term thinking, which at the moment none of the main parties are providing.

A crazy world, replicated by the crazy markets.

if you're all voting "out", then i hope you'll have sold all your stocks and shorted the indices well before the result

Strange but I know all the characters on the US Supreme Court but none on ours. Am I alone in that?
The joint enterprise decision is radical. It has always been the case in UK and US law that if you were part of a murder group, you were all guilty regardless of who actually committed the act.

so labour is not in self-destruct mode?
who are you trying to kid?

corbyn is the "man of the future"?
ROTFL!

presumably hand in hand with accessory before the fact

but joint enterprise goes back far longer than 30 years, as below .....

Derek William Bentley (30 June 1933 – 28 January 1953) was an Englishman who was hanged for the murder of a policeman, which was committed in the course of a burglary attempt. The murder was said at the time to have been committed by a friend and accomplice of Bentley's, Christopher Craig, then aged 16, but whether he had fired the fatal shot was later called into question. Bentley was convicted as a party to murder, by the English law principle of common purpose, "joint enterprise".

Joint enterprise is not about being a member of the group in a murder. That would in most cases still be murder. It is about being present and not having prior knowledge of the intentions to murder or have a reasonable expectation of murder being committed.

Bentley would not be convicted now. Firstly, he was of reduced mental capacity and had no idea that the other guy had a gun.

Definition.
Joint enterprise is a powerful prosecuting tool applied so that more than one person - often a group - can be charged with the same crime if it can be proved that they were in some way "in it together". It applies even though the suspects may have played different parts in the alleged offence.

I don't see anything about prior knowledge etc, which is difficult to prove anyhow. The act is fact, although there may be degrees of participation in the act, as said in the definition.

That is not the legal definition.

The defense against joint enterprise is lack of prior knowledge and not having the expectation of the crime being committed.

Good article EL, nicked :-)

Sums it up well, but we will have to see what Dave comes back with.

If it's as outlined, the so called renegotiation will be shown for what it is.

I know of someone who gave a lift a couple of his friends to collect some money from someone. He also had another friend with him who stayed in the car. When they arrived one stayed in the car and the other three went to the house. The guy at the house would not give the money. One of the two guys who wanted the money pulled a replica gun. The guy that I know tried to stop things getting out of hand. They left and the guy in the house called the police. All four were arrested. They all spent 6 months on remand in prison. Two were charged with joint enterprise and were found innocent in court when the police offered no evidence.

You seem to suffer from strange companions!