<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly4xldgnzgo>
QUOTE:
One of Stephen Lawrence's murderers now accepts being involved in
attacking the black teenager, reports to the Parole Board suggest.
David Norris was jailed for life in 2012 after he had denied being part
of the racist attack on 18-year-old Stephen, who was stabbed to death by
a gang of young white men in Eltham, south London.
The Parole Board issued a decision on Thursday that Norris's parole
hearing should be heard in public.
He became eligible for parole in December after his minimum term expired.
The Parole Board report, external said: "Recent reports now suggest he
has accepted he was present at the scene and punched the victim but
claims that he did not wield the knife. He does not accept he holds
racist views."
The Parole Board confirmed to the BBC that the evidence considered by
the public hearing decision-maker was a dossier mostly formed of reports
from professionals such as prison and community offender managers.
ENDQUOTE
This business of having to admit an offence denied at arrest, at trial
and ever since (in order to have even a chance of parole) has been the subject of controversy on previous occasions, especially, perhaps, in
the case of Andrew Malkinson (who was freed after having the trial
verdict quashed after serving 17 years).
Yes, there is the question of remorse and contrition, and it appears to
be very important in the question of parole, but can it be reasonable?
As Malkinson asked, what should an innocent person* say to the parole
board when asked about the offence and any remorse or contrition?
[* That is, a person who has denied the offence at all material times
and maintains that stance.]
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly4xldgnzgo>
QUOTE:
One of Stephen Lawrence's murderers now accepts being involved in
attacking the black teenager, reports to the Parole Board suggest.
David Norris was jailed for life in 2012 after he had denied being part
of the racist attack on 18-year-old Stephen, who was stabbed to death by
a gang of young white men in Eltham, south London.
The Parole Board issued a decision on Thursday that Norris's parole
hearing should be heard in public.
He became eligible for parole in December after his minimum term expired.
The Parole Board report, external said: "Recent reports now suggest he
has accepted he was present at the scene and punched the victim but
claims that he did not wield the knife. He does not accept he holds
racist views."
The Parole Board confirmed to the BBC that the evidence considered by
the public hearing decision-maker was a dossier mostly formed of reports
from professionals such as prison and community offender managers.
ENDQUOTE
This business of having to admit an offence denied at arrest, at trial
and ever since (in order to have even a chance of parole) has been the
subject of controversy on previous occasions, especially, perhaps, in
the case of Andrew Malkinson (who was freed after having the trial
verdict quashed after serving 17 years).
Yes, there is the question of remorse and contrition, and it appears to
be very important in the question of parole, but can it be reasonable?
As Malkinson asked, what should an innocent person* say to the parole
board when asked about the offence and any remorse or contrition?
[* That is, a person who has denied the offence at all material times
and maintains that stance.]
I don’t accept those who are guilty of murder should even be released. That aside…
If they have denied their guilt only to admit it later, possibly to secure their release under the parole scheme, how can we possibly accept their admission is genuine.
That should automatically cast doubt on any claims to
feel remorse or contrition.
Far simpler just to bring back the death penalty.
Far simpler just to bring back the death penalty.
"Brian" <noinv@lid.org> wrote in message news:vrunjt$3p04a$1@dont-email.me...
Far simpler just to bring back the death penalty.
Indeed. If they'd hung Lucy Letby there wouldn't have been
any need for all these stupid articles and enquiries.
She would already have been long forgotten by now,
Same as the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four.
As the former Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning said, if they'd
have been hung, whether guilty or not, there would have been no
need for all those Appeals
quote:
"Hanging ought to be retained for murder most foul. We shouldn't have
all these campaigns to get the Birmingham Six released if they'd been
hanged. They'd have been forgotten,
:unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Denning,_Baron_Denning
Forgotten indeed.
"Forgive and Forget" being of course the motto of the IRA
bb
On 25 Mar 2025 at 17:02:53 GMT, "Brian" <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly4xldgnzgo>
QUOTE:
One of Stephen Lawrence's murderers now accepts being involved in
attacking the black teenager, reports to the Parole Board suggest.
David Norris was jailed for life in 2012 after he had denied being part
of the racist attack on 18-year-old Stephen, who was stabbed to death by >>> a gang of young white men in Eltham, south London.
The Parole Board issued a decision on Thursday that Norris's parole
hearing should be heard in public.
He became eligible for parole in December after his minimum term expired. >>>
The Parole Board report, external said: "Recent reports now suggest he
has accepted he was present at the scene and punched the victim but
claims that he did not wield the knife. He does not accept he holds
racist views."
The Parole Board confirmed to the BBC that the evidence considered by
the public hearing decision-maker was a dossier mostly formed of reports >>> from professionals such as prison and community offender managers.
ENDQUOTE
This business of having to admit an offence denied at arrest, at trial
and ever since (in order to have even a chance of parole) has been the
subject of controversy on previous occasions, especially, perhaps, in
the case of Andrew Malkinson (who was freed after having the trial
verdict quashed after serving 17 years).
Yes, there is the question of remorse and contrition, and it appears to
be very important in the question of parole, but can it be reasonable?
As Malkinson asked, what should an innocent person* say to the parole
board when asked about the offence and any remorse or contrition?
[* That is, a person who has denied the offence at all material times
and maintains that stance.]
I don’t accept those who are guilty of murder should even be released. That
aside…
If they have denied their guilt only to admit it later, possibly to secure >> their release under the parole scheme, how can we possibly accept their
admission is genuine.
I find that rather confusing; if they did commit the crime how can their admission not be genuine? Is their some nuance I have missed, or do you think they have their fingers crossed behind their back or something?
That should automatically cast doubt on any claims to
feel remorse or contrition.
Far simpler just to bring back the death penalty.
Even the most rabid of jurisdictions recognise degrees of culpability of murder, and do not execute all those found guilty of murder. Would you execute
those guilty of mercy killing a relative in severe pain at their request, for instance?
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Brian" <noinv@lid.org> wrote in message news:vrunjt$3p04a$1@dont-email.me...
Far simpler just to bring back the death penalty.
Indeed. If they'd hung Lucy Letby there wouldn't have been
any need for all these stupid articles and enquiries.
She would already have been long forgotten by now,
Same as the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four.
As the former Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning said, if they'd
have been hung, whether guilty or not, there would have been no
need for all those Appeals
quote:
"Hanging ought to be retained for murder most foul. We shouldn't have
all these campaigns to get the Birmingham Six released if they'd been
hanged. They'd have been forgotten,
:unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Denning,_Baron_Denning
Forgotten indeed.
"Forgive and Forget" being of course the motto of the IRA
bb
I see the Ellis case is back in the media.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Brian" <noinv@lid.org> wrote in message news:vrunjt$3p04a$1@dont-email.me...
Far simpler just to bring back the death penalty.
Indeed. If they'd hung Lucy Letby there wouldn't have been
any need for all these stupid articles and enquiries.
She would already have been long forgotten by now,
Same as the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four.
As the former Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning said, if they'd
have been hung, whether guilty or not, there would have been no
need for all those Appeals
quote:
"Hanging ought to be retained for murder most foul. We shouldn't have
all these campaigns to get the Birmingham Six released if they'd been
hanged. They'd have been forgotten,
:unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Denning,_Baron_Denning
Forgotten indeed.
"Forgive and Forget" being of course the motto of the IRA
I see the Ellis case is back in the media.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly4xldgnzgo>I don’t accept those who are guilty of murder should even be released. That aside…
QUOTE:
One of Stephen Lawrence's murderers now accepts being involved in
attacking the black teenager, reports to the Parole Board suggest.
David Norris was jailed for life in 2012 after he had denied being part
of the racist attack on 18-year-old Stephen, who was stabbed to death by
a gang of young white men in Eltham, south London.
The Parole Board issued a decision on Thursday that Norris's parole
hearing should be heard in public.
He became eligible for parole in December after his minimum term expired.
The Parole Board report, external said: "Recent reports now suggest he
has accepted he was present at the scene and punched the victim but
claims that he did not wield the knife. He does not accept he holds
racist views."
The Parole Board confirmed to the BBC that the evidence considered by
the public hearing decision-maker was a dossier mostly formed of reports
from professionals such as prison and community offender managers.
ENDQUOTE
This business of having to admit an offence denied at arrest, at trial
and ever since (in order to have even a chance of parole) has been the
subject of controversy on previous occasions, especially, perhaps, in
the case of Andrew Malkinson (who was freed after having the trial
verdict quashed after serving 17 years).
Yes, there is the question of remorse and contrition, and it appears to
be very important in the question of parole, but can it be reasonable?
As Malkinson asked, what should an innocent person* say to the parole
board when asked about the offence and any remorse or contrition?
[* That is, a person who has denied the offence at all material times
and maintains that stance.]
If they have denied their guilt only to admit it later, possibly to secure their release under the parole scheme, how can we possibly accept their admission is genuine. That should automatically cast doubt on any claims to feel remorse or contrition.
Far simpler just to bring back the death penalty.
If they have denied their guilt only to admit it later, possibly to secure >>their release under the parole scheme, how can we possibly accept their >>admission is genuine. That should automatically cast doubt on any claims
to
feel remorse or contrition.
Far simpler just to bring back the death penalty.
Even when we had it, not all murderers suffered it.
On 25/03/2025 09:24 PM, Brian wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Brian" <noinv@lid.org> wrote in message news:vrunjt$3p04a$1@dont-email.me...
Far simpler just to bring back the death penalty.
Indeed. If they'd hung Lucy Letby there wouldn't have been
any need for all these stupid articles and enquiries.
She would already have been long forgotten by now,
Same as the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four.
As the former Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning said, if they'd
have been hung, whether guilty or not, there would have been no
need for all those Appeals
quote:
"Hanging ought to be retained for murder most foul. We shouldn't have
all these campaigns to get the Birmingham Six released if they'd been
hanged. They'd have been forgotten,
:unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Denning,_Baron_Denning
Forgotten indeed.
"Forgive and Forget" being of course the motto of the IRA
I see the Ellis case is back in the media.
Somewhat "sexed up", though.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:m4ickjFatsqU2@mid.individual.net...
On 25/03/2025 09:24 PM, Brian wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Brian" <noinv@lid.org> wrote in message news:vrunjt$3p04a$1@dont-email.me...
Far simpler just to bring back the death penalty.
Indeed. If they'd hung Lucy Letby there wouldn't have been
any need for all these stupid articles and enquiries.
She would already have been long forgotten by now,
Same as the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four.
As the former Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning said, if they'd
have been hung, whether guilty or not, there would have been no
need for all those Appeals
quote:
"Hanging ought to be retained for murder most foul. We shouldn't have
all these campaigns to get the Birmingham Six released if they'd been
hanged. They'd have been forgotten,
:unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Denning,_Baron_Denning
Forgotten indeed.
"Forgive and Forget" being of course the motto of the IRA
I see the Ellis case is back in the media.
Somewhat "sexed up", though.
Refreshing the memory from the Wikipedia account
quote:
Ruth took a .38 calibre Smith & Wesson Victory Model revolver from her handbag and fired five shots at Blakely. The first shot missed. Ruth pursued Blakely as he started to run around the car, firing a second shot which caused
him to collapse onto the pavement. She then stood over him and fired three more bullets, with one fired less than half an inch from his back, leaving powder
burns on his skin.
[...]
At Hampstead police station, Ruth appeared to be calm and not obviously under the influence of drink or drugs.
[...]
Ruth was twice examined by principal Medical Officer, M. R. Penry Williams, who failed to find evidence of mental illness; an electroencephalograph examination on 3 May found no abnormality. While on remand, Ruth was examined by psychiatrist Duncan Whittaker for the defence and by Alexander Dalzell
on behalf of the Home Office. Neither found evidence of insanity.
[...]
On 20 June 1955, Ruth appeared in the Number One Court at the Old Bailey, London,
before Mr Justice Havers. She was dressed in a black suit and white silk blouse with
freshly bleached and coiffured blonde hair. Her defending counsel, Aubrey Melford
Stevenson, supported by Sebag Shaw and Peter Rawlinson, expressed concern about
her appearance (and dyed blonde hair) but she did not alter it to appear less striking.
[...]
The only question put to Ruth by prosecutor Christmas Humphreys was, "When you fired the revolver at close range into the body of David Blakely, what did you
intend to do?"; her answer was, "It's obvious when I shot him I intended to kill him."
This reply guaranteed a guilty verdict and the mandatory death sentence. The jury
took twenty minutes to convict her.[20]
[..]
Ruth remained at Holloway Prison while awaiting execution. She told her mother
that she did not want a petition to reprieve her from the death sentence and took
no part in the campaign.
:unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Ellis
Reading all that, it's almost impossible not to conclude* that here was a women
truly at her wits end as a result of her dealings with men. Who rather than
simply stick her head in a gas oven ** in some anonymous bedsit, and slip away
quietly, totally and conveniently unnoticed, decided to first seek revenge and
then rather than doing it herself, get the job done by a real professional. In the process thereby gaining for herself the kind of immortality in death***
which she'd finally realised she was never going to achieve in life; certainly
not in her stillborn showbiz career.
Is that the line being taken in the TV dramatisation ?
Clearly she could represent a feminist icon of sorts but I somehow doubt
that any TV dramatisation is ever going to stop succeeding generations of abusive boyfriends or husbands in their tracks, somehow.
Apparently according to PE at least the compensation payments for wrongly convicted postmasters are rapidly losing momentum, as the TV dramatisation
of their plight, fades in the collective consciousness.
While as the law stood, and stands there clearly have never been any real grounds for a pardon. It would be interesting to know on what grounds
quote:
in 2003 [the case] was referred back to the Court of Appeal by the
Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC)
unquote:
When truly deserving cases apparently go begging for want of resources.
One real irony being perhaps that Ruth Ellis's execution possibly
contributed to the abolition of capital punishment but certainly
not for any reason *she* would have wanted. Because surely, while
desperately seeking some reason or excuse *not* to hang her, it
must have occurred to a least some of them, that here was a woman
who was actually determined to be hanged - with the actual collusion
of the State. And that the prospect of eight years in Holloway instead
had the death penalty already been abolished, would have possibly
acted as a far greater deterrent, to any such overly dramatic
act of revenge.
There is a plan to try to get her a posthumous pardon. I feel sure it
has absolutely no chance of success. If Ruth Ellis was alive and could
be consulted I think she would disapprove.
On 27/03/2025 08:37, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m4ickjFatsqU2@mid.individual.net...
On 25/03/2025 09:24 PM, Brian wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Brian" <noinv@lid.org> wrote in message news:vrunjt$3p04a$1@dont-email.me...
Far simpler just to bring back the death penalty.
Indeed. If they'd hung Lucy Letby there wouldn't have been
any need for all these stupid articles and enquiries.
She would already have been long forgotten by now,
Same as the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four.
As the former Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning said, if they'd
have been hung, whether guilty or not, there would have been no
need for all those Appeals
quote:
"Hanging ought to be retained for murder most foul. We shouldn't have >>>>> all these campaigns to get the Birmingham Six released if they'd been >>>>> hanged. They'd have been forgotten,
:unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Denning,_Baron_Denning
Forgotten indeed.
"Forgive and Forget" being of course the motto of the IRA
I see the Ellis case is back in the media.
Somewhat "sexed up", though.
Refreshing the memory from the Wikipedia account
quote:
Ruth took a .38 calibre Smith & Wesson Victory Model revolver from her
handbag and fired five shots at Blakely. The first shot missed. Ruth pursued >> Blakely as he started to run around the car, firing a second shot which caused
him to collapse onto the pavement. She then stood over him and fired three >> more bullets, with one fired less than half an inch from his back, leaving powder
burns on his skin.
[...]
At Hampstead police station, Ruth appeared to be calm and not obviously under
the influence of drink or drugs.
[...]
Ruth was twice examined by principal Medical Officer, M. R. Penry Williams, >> who failed to find evidence of mental illness; an electroencephalograph
examination on 3 May found no abnormality. While on remand, Ruth was examined
by psychiatrist Duncan Whittaker for the defence and by Alexander Dalzell
on behalf of the Home Office. Neither found evidence of insanity.
[...]
On 20 June 1955, Ruth appeared in the Number One Court at the Old Bailey, London,
before Mr Justice Havers. She was dressed in a black suit and white silk blouse with
freshly bleached and coiffured blonde hair. Her defending counsel, Aubrey Melford
Stevenson, supported by Sebag Shaw and Peter Rawlinson, expressed concern about
her appearance (and dyed blonde hair) but she did not alter it to appear less
striking.
[...]
The only question put to Ruth by prosecutor Christmas Humphreys was, "When >> you fired the revolver at close range into the body of David Blakely, what did you
intend to do?"; her answer was, "It's obvious when I shot him I intended to kill him."
This reply guaranteed a guilty verdict and the mandatory death sentence. The jury
took twenty minutes to convict her.[20]
[..]
Ruth remained at Holloway Prison while awaiting execution. She told her mother
that she did not want a petition to reprieve her from the death sentence and took
no part in the campaign.
:unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Ellis
Reading all that, it's almost impossible not to conclude* that here was a women
truly at her wits end as a result of her dealings with men. Who rather than
You say "with men" but I think it was just the one man, the murder victim, Blakely.
She was jealous of him and infuriated by his infidelity. I think it is a modern
construct to see her as a victim of coercive control whose actions should be seen as
involuntary.
There is a plan to try to get her a posthumous pardon. I feel sure it has absolutely no
chance of success. If Ruth Ellis was alive and could be consulted I think she would
disapprove.
see
https://www.legalcheek.com/2025/03/london-law-firm-mishcon-pursues-pardon-for-the-last-woman-hanged-in-the-uk/
It rather looks like a virtue-signalling and publicity-seeking move.
simply stick her head in a gas oven ** in some anonymous bedsit, and slip away
quietly, totally and conveniently unnoticed, decided to first seek revenge and
then rather than doing it herself, get the job done by a real professional. >> In the process thereby gaining for herself the kind of immortality in death***
which she'd finally realised she was never going to achieve in life; certainly
not in her stillborn showbiz career.
Is that the line being taken in the TV dramatisation ?
Clearly she could represent a feminist icon of sorts but I somehow doubt
that any TV dramatisation is ever going to stop succeeding generations of
abusive boyfriends or husbands in their tracks, somehow.
Apparently according to PE at least the compensation payments for wrongly
convicted postmasters are rapidly losing momentum, as the TV dramatisation >> of their plight, fades in the collective consciousness.
While as the law stood, and stands there clearly have never been any real
grounds for a pardon. It would be interesting to know on what grounds
quote:
in 2003 [the case] was referred back to the Court of Appeal by the
Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC)
unquote:
When truly deserving cases apparently go begging for want of resources.
One real irony being perhaps that Ruth Ellis's execution possibly
contributed to the abolition of capital punishment but certainly
not for any reason *she* would have wanted. Because surely, while
desperately seeking some reason or excuse *not* to hang her, it
must have occurred to a least some of them, that here was a woman
who was actually determined to be hanged - with the actual collusion
of the State. And that the prospect of eight years in Holloway instead
had the death penalty already been abolished, would have possibly
acted as a far greater deterrent, to any such overly dramatic
act of revenge.
I haven't yet watched the latest Ruth Ellis dramatisation. I enjoyed the film years ago
which starred Miranda Richardson. I'm very much anti- capital punishment but posthumous pardons seem like a waste of judicial time.
And there would be worthier people to campaign for. Such as the Irish republicans who
participated in the Easter Rising in 1916.
On 27/03/2025 08:58 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 27/03/2025 08:37, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m4ickjFatsqU2@mid.individual.net...
On 25/03/2025 09:24 PM, Brian wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Brian" <noinv@lid.org> wrote in message
news:vrunjt$3p04a$1@dont-email.me...
Far simpler just to bring back the death penalty.
Indeed. If they'd hung Lucy Letby there wouldn't have been
any need for all these stupid articles and enquiries.
She would already have been long forgotten by now,
Same as the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four.
As the former Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning said, if they'd
have been hung, whether guilty or not, there would have been no
need for all those Appeals
quote:
"Hanging ought to be retained for murder most foul. We shouldn't have >>>>>> all these campaigns to get the Birmingham Six released if they'd been >>>>>> hanged. They'd have been forgotten,
:unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Denning,_Baron_Denning
Forgotten indeed.
"Forgive and Forget" being of course the motto of the IRA
I see the Ellis case is back in the media.
Somewhat "sexed up", though.
Refreshing the memory from the Wikipedia account
quote:
Ruth took a .38 calibre Smith & Wesson Victory Model revolver from her
handbag and fired five shots at Blakely. The first shot missed. Ruth
pursued
Blakely as he started to run around the car, firing a second shot
which caused
him to collapse onto the pavement. She then stood over him and fired
three
more bullets, with one fired less than half an inch from his back,
leaving powder
burns on his skin.
[...]
At Hampstead police station, Ruth appeared to be calm and not
obviously under
the influence of drink or drugs.
[...]
Ruth was twice examined by principal Medical Officer, M. R. Penry
Williams,
who failed to find evidence of mental illness; an electroencephalograph
examination on 3 May found no abnormality. While on remand, Ruth was
examined
by psychiatrist Duncan Whittaker for the defence and by Alexander
Dalzell
on behalf of the Home Office. Neither found evidence of insanity.
[...]
On 20 June 1955, Ruth appeared in the Number One Court at the Old
Bailey, London,
before Mr Justice Havers. She was dressed in a black suit and white
silk blouse with
freshly bleached and coiffured blonde hair. Her defending counsel,
Aubrey Melford
Stevenson, supported by Sebag Shaw and Peter Rawlinson, expressed
concern about
her appearance (and dyed blonde hair) but she did not alter it to
appear less
striking.
[...]
The only question put to Ruth by prosecutor Christmas Humphreys was,
"When
you fired the revolver at close range into the body of David Blakely,
what did you
intend to do?"; her answer was, "It's obvious when I shot him I
intended to kill him."
This reply guaranteed a guilty verdict and the mandatory death
sentence. The jury
took twenty minutes to convict her.[20]
[..]
Ruth remained at Holloway Prison while awaiting execution. She told
her mother
that she did not want a petition to reprieve her from the death
sentence and took
no part in the campaign.
:unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Ellis
Reading all that, it's almost impossible not to conclude* that here
was a women
truly at her wits end as a result of her dealings with men. Who rather
than
You say "with men" but I think it was just the one man, the murder
victim, Blakely. She was jealous of him and infuriated by his
infidelity. I think it is a modern construct to see her as a victim of
coercive control whose actions should be seen as involuntary.
There is a plan to try to get her a posthumous pardon. I feel sure it
has absolutely no chance of success. If Ruth Ellis was alive and could
be consulted I think she would disapprove.
see
https://www.legalcheek.com/2025/03/london-law-firm-mishcon-pursues-
pardon-for-the-last-woman-hanged-in-the-uk/
It rather looks like a virtue-signalling and publicity-seeking move.
simply stick her head in a gas oven ** in some anonymous bedsit, and
slip away
quietly, totally and conveniently unnoticed, decided to first seek
revenge and
then rather than doing it herself, get the job done by a real
professional.
In the process thereby gaining for herself the kind of immortality in
death***
which she'd finally realised she was never going to achieve in life;
certainly
not in her stillborn showbiz career.
Is that the line being taken in the TV dramatisation ?
Clearly she could represent a feminist icon of sorts but I somehow doubt >>> that any TV dramatisation is ever going to stop succeeding
generations of
abusive boyfriends or husbands in their tracks, somehow.
Apparently according to PE at least the compensation payments for
wrongly
convicted postmasters are rapidly losing momentum, as the TV
dramatisation
of their plight, fades in the collective consciousness.
While as the law stood, and stands there clearly have never been any
real
grounds for a pardon. It would be interesting to know on what grounds
quote:
in 2003 [the case] was referred back to the Court of Appeal by the
Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC)
unquote:
When truly deserving cases apparently go begging for want of resources.
One real irony being perhaps that Ruth Ellis's execution possibly
contributed to the abolition of capital punishment but certainly
not for any reason *she* would have wanted. Because surely, while
desperately seeking some reason or excuse *not* to hang her, it
must have occurred to a least some of them, that here was a woman
who was actually determined to be hanged - with the actual collusion
of the State. And that the prospect of eight years in Holloway instead
had the death penalty already been abolished, would have possibly
acted as a far greater deterrent, to any such overly dramatic
act of revenge.
I haven't yet watched the latest Ruth Ellis dramatisation. I enjoyed the
film years ago which starred Miranda Richardson. I'm very much anti-
capital punishment but posthumous pardons seem like a waste of judicial
time. And there would be worthier people to campaign for. Such as the
Irish republicans who participated in the Easter Rising in 1916.
The film "Dance With A Stranger" (1hr 42m), from memory, somewhat
underplayed the role of Desmond Cussen when compared with the latest
four episode (approx. 3hrs 10m net of adverts and three of the four sets
of credits) treatment.
It's a while since I saw the film, but I don't recall any narrative to
the effect that Cussen drove Ellis to the murder scene in his own taxi
(in use as a private car - something which was more common in that post-
WW2 age when cars were harder to come by than they later were). Neither
do I recall any great emphasis as to his having provided her with the
murder weapon and ammunition.
But the recent version made great play of all of that, which was at
least compatible with the Victor Mishcon evidence. In the film version, Mishcon and his interview/evidence aren't portrayed or mentioned.
Here's the film's Wikipedia synopsis, verbatim:
QUOTE:
A former nude model and prostitute, Ruth is manageress of a drinking
club in London that has racing drivers as its main clients. Ruth lives
in a flat above the bar with her illegitimate son Andy. Another child is
in the custody of her estranged husband's family.
In the club, she meets David, an immature, young man from a well-off
family who wants to succeed in motor racing but suffers from lack of
money and overuse of alcohol. Ruth falls for his looks and charm, but it
is a doomed relationship. Without a job, he cannot afford to marry her,
and his family would never accept her. When he makes a drunken scene in
the club, she is discharged from her job, which means that she is made homeless.
Desmond, a wealthy admirer, secures a flat for her and her son, but she
still sees David. When she tells him she is pregnant, he does nothing
about it, and she miscarries. Distraught, she goes to a house in
Hampstead where she believes David is at a party. He comes out and goes
with a girl to a pub. Ruth waits outside the pub, and when he emerges,
she shoots him dead with four shots. She is arrested, tried and hanged. ENDQUOTE
Nothing about Cussen's driving her to the scene and a strong implication
that she made her own way from the third party girl's flat to the
Magdala pub.
And nothing about Blakeley's assault upon Ellis, causing the miscarriage.
I hope this is taken as an answer to BB as well.
On 27/03/2025 08:37, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m4ickjFatsqU2@mid.individual.net...
On 25/03/2025 09:24 PM, Brian wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Brian" <noinv@lid.org> wrote in message
news:vrunjt$3p04a$1@dont-email.me...
Far simpler just to bring back the death penalty.
Indeed. If they'd hung Lucy Letby there wouldn't have been
any need for all these stupid articles and enquiries.
She would already have been long forgotten by now,
Same as the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four.
As the former Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning said, if they'd
have been hung, whether guilty or not, there would have been no
need for all those Appeals
quote:
"Hanging ought to be retained for murder most foul. We shouldn't have >>>>> all these campaigns to get the Birmingham Six released if they'd been >>>>> hanged. They'd have been forgotten,
:unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Denning,_Baron_Denning
Forgotten indeed.
"Forgive and Forget" being of course the motto of the IRA
I see the Ellis case is back in the media.
Somewhat "sexed up", though.
Refreshing the memory from the Wikipedia account
quote:
Ruth took a .38 calibre Smith & Wesson Victory Model revolver from her
handbag and fired five shots at Blakely. The first shot missed. Ruth
pursued
Blakely as he started to run around the car, firing a second shot
which caused
him to collapse onto the pavement. She then stood over him and fired
three
more bullets, with one fired less than half an inch from his back,
leaving powder
burns on his skin.
[...]
At Hampstead police station, Ruth appeared to be calm and not
obviously under
the influence of drink or drugs.
[...]
Ruth was twice examined by principal Medical Officer, M. R. Penry
Williams,
who failed to find evidence of mental illness; an electroencephalograph
examination on 3 May found no abnormality. While on remand, Ruth was
examined
by psychiatrist Duncan Whittaker for the defence and by Alexander Dalzell
on behalf of the Home Office. Neither found evidence of insanity.
[...]
On 20 June 1955, Ruth appeared in the Number One Court at the Old
Bailey, London,
before Mr Justice Havers. She was dressed in a black suit and white
silk blouse with
freshly bleached and coiffured blonde hair. Her defending counsel,
Aubrey Melford
Stevenson, supported by Sebag Shaw and Peter Rawlinson, expressed
concern about
her appearance (and dyed blonde hair) but she did not alter it to
appear less
striking.
[...]
The only question put to Ruth by prosecutor Christmas Humphreys was,
"When
you fired the revolver at close range into the body of David Blakely,
what did you
intend to do?"; her answer was, "It's obvious when I shot him I
intended to kill him."
This reply guaranteed a guilty verdict and the mandatory death
sentence. The jury
took twenty minutes to convict her.[20]
[..]
Ruth remained at Holloway Prison while awaiting execution. She told
her mother
that she did not want a petition to reprieve her from the death
sentence and took
no part in the campaign.
:unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Ellis
Reading all that, it's almost impossible not to conclude* that here
was a women
truly at her wits end as a result of her dealings with men. Who rather
than
You say "with men" but I think it was just the one man, the murder
victim, Blakely. She was jealous of him and infuriated by his
infidelity. I think it is a modern construct to see her as a victim of coercive control whose actions should be seen as involuntary.
There is a plan to try to get her a posthumous pardon. I feel sure it
has absolutely no chance of success. If Ruth Ellis was alive and could
be consulted I think she would disapprove.
see
https://www.legalcheek.com/2025/03/london-law-firm-mishcon-pursues-pardon-for-the-last-woman-hanged-in-the-uk/
It rather looks like a virtue-signalling and publicity-seeking move.
simply stick her head in a gas oven ** in some anonymous bedsit, and
slip away
quietly, totally and conveniently unnoticed, decided to first seek
revenge and
then rather than doing it herself, get the job done by a real
professional.
In the process thereby gaining for herself the kind of immortality in
death***
which she'd finally realised she was never going to achieve in life;
certainly
not in her stillborn showbiz career.
Is that the line being taken in the TV dramatisation ?
Clearly she could represent a feminist icon of sorts but I somehow doubt
that any TV dramatisation is ever going to stop succeeding generations of
abusive boyfriends or husbands in their tracks, somehow.
Apparently according to PE at least the compensation payments for wrongly
convicted postmasters are rapidly losing momentum, as the TV
dramatisation
of their plight, fades in the collective consciousness.
While as the law stood, and stands there clearly have never been any real
grounds for a pardon. It would be interesting to know on what grounds
quote:
in 2003 [the case] was referred back to the Court of Appeal by the
Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC)
unquote:
When truly deserving cases apparently go begging for want of resources.
One real irony being perhaps that Ruth Ellis's execution possibly
contributed to the abolition of capital punishment but certainly
not for any reason *she* would have wanted. Because surely, while
desperately seeking some reason or excuse *not* to hang her, it
must have occurred to a least some of them, that here was a woman
who was actually determined to be hanged - with the actual collusion
of the State. And that the prospect of eight years in Holloway instead
had the death penalty already been abolished, would have possibly
acted as a far greater deterrent, to any such overly dramatic
act of revenge.
I haven't yet watched the latest Ruth Ellis dramatisation. I enjoyed the
film years ago which starred Miranda Richardson. I'm very much anti-
capital punishment but posthumous pardons seem like a waste of judicial
time. And there would be worthier people to campaign for. Such as the
Irish republicans who participated in the Easter Rising in 1916.
On 27/03/2025 08:58 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 27/03/2025 08:37, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m4ickjFatsqU2@mid.individual.net...
On 25/03/2025 09:24 PM, Brian wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Brian" <noinv@lid.org> wrote in message
news:vrunjt$3p04a$1@dont-email.me...
Far simpler just to bring back the death penalty.
Indeed. If they'd hung Lucy Letby there wouldn't have been
any need for all these stupid articles and enquiries.
She would already have been long forgotten by now,
Same as the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four.
As the former Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning said, if they'd
have been hung, whether guilty or not, there would have been no
need for all those Appeals
quote:
"Hanging ought to be retained for murder most foul. We shouldn't have >>>>>> all these campaigns to get the Birmingham Six released if they'd been >>>>>> hanged. They'd have been forgotten,
:unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Denning,_Baron_Denning
Forgotten indeed.
"Forgive and Forget" being of course the motto of the IRA
I see the Ellis case is back in the media.
Somewhat "sexed up", though.
Refreshing the memory from the Wikipedia account
quote:
Ruth took a .38 calibre Smith & Wesson Victory Model revolver from her
handbag and fired five shots at Blakely. The first shot missed. Ruth
pursued
Blakely as he started to run around the car, firing a second shot
which caused
him to collapse onto the pavement. She then stood over him and fired
three
more bullets, with one fired less than half an inch from his back,
leaving powder
burns on his skin.
[...]
At Hampstead police station, Ruth appeared to be calm and not
obviously under
the influence of drink or drugs.
[...]
Ruth was twice examined by principal Medical Officer, M. R. Penry
Williams,
who failed to find evidence of mental illness; an electroencephalograph
examination on 3 May found no abnormality. While on remand, Ruth was
examined
by psychiatrist Duncan Whittaker for the defence and by Alexander Dalzell >>> on behalf of the Home Office. Neither found evidence of insanity.
[...]
On 20 June 1955, Ruth appeared in the Number One Court at the Old
Bailey, London,
before Mr Justice Havers. She was dressed in a black suit and white
silk blouse with
freshly bleached and coiffured blonde hair. Her defending counsel,
Aubrey Melford
Stevenson, supported by Sebag Shaw and Peter Rawlinson, expressed
concern about
her appearance (and dyed blonde hair) but she did not alter it to
appear less
striking.
[...]
The only question put to Ruth by prosecutor Christmas Humphreys was,
"When
you fired the revolver at close range into the body of David Blakely,
what did you
intend to do?"; her answer was, "It's obvious when I shot him I
intended to kill him."
This reply guaranteed a guilty verdict and the mandatory death
sentence. The jury
took twenty minutes to convict her.[20]
[..]
Ruth remained at Holloway Prison while awaiting execution. She told
her mother
that she did not want a petition to reprieve her from the death
sentence and took
no part in the campaign.
:unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Ellis
Reading all that, it's almost impossible not to conclude* that here
was a women
truly at her wits end as a result of her dealings with men. Who rather
than
You say "with men" but I think it was just the one man, the murder
victim, Blakely. She was jealous of him and infuriated by his
infidelity. I think it is a modern construct to see her as a victim of
coercive control whose actions should be seen as involuntary.
There is a plan to try to get her a posthumous pardon. I feel sure it
has absolutely no chance of success. If Ruth Ellis was alive and could
be consulted I think she would disapprove.
see
https://www.legalcheek.com/2025/03/london-law-firm-mishcon-pursues-pardon-for-the-last-woman-hanged-in-the-uk/
It rather looks like a virtue-signalling and publicity-seeking move.
simply stick her head in a gas oven ** in some anonymous bedsit, and
slip away
quietly, totally and conveniently unnoticed, decided to first seek
revenge and
then rather than doing it herself, get the job done by a real
professional.
In the process thereby gaining for herself the kind of immortality in
death***
which she'd finally realised she was never going to achieve in life;
certainly
not in her stillborn showbiz career.
Is that the line being taken in the TV dramatisation ?
Clearly she could represent a feminist icon of sorts but I somehow doubt >>> that any TV dramatisation is ever going to stop succeeding generations of >>> abusive boyfriends or husbands in their tracks, somehow.
Apparently according to PE at least the compensation payments for wrongly >>> convicted postmasters are rapidly losing momentum, as the TV
dramatisation
of their plight, fades in the collective consciousness.
While as the law stood, and stands there clearly have never been any real >>> grounds for a pardon. It would be interesting to know on what grounds
quote:
in 2003 [the case] was referred back to the Court of Appeal by the
Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC)
unquote:
When truly deserving cases apparently go begging for want of resources.
One real irony being perhaps that Ruth Ellis's execution possibly
contributed to the abolition of capital punishment but certainly
not for any reason *she* would have wanted. Because surely, while
desperately seeking some reason or excuse *not* to hang her, it
must have occurred to a least some of them, that here was a woman
who was actually determined to be hanged - with the actual collusion
of the State. And that the prospect of eight years in Holloway instead
had the death penalty already been abolished, would have possibly
acted as a far greater deterrent, to any such overly dramatic
act of revenge.
I haven't yet watched the latest Ruth Ellis dramatisation. I enjoyed the
film years ago which starred Miranda Richardson. I'm very much anti-
capital punishment but posthumous pardons seem like a waste of judicial
time. And there would be worthier people to campaign for. Such as the
Irish republicans who participated in the Easter Rising in 1916.
The film "Dance With A Stranger" (1hr 42m), from memory, somewhat
underplayed the role of Desmond Cussen when compared with the latest
four episode (approx. 3hrs 10m net of adverts and three of the four sets
of credits) treatment.
It's a while since I saw the film, but I don't recall any narrative to
the effect that Cussen drove Ellis to the murder scene in his own taxi
(in use as a private car - something which was more common in that
post-WW2 age when cars were harder to come by than they later were).
Neither do I recall any great emphasis as to his having provided her
with the murder weapon and ammunition.
But the recent version made great play of all of that, which was at
least compatible with the Victor Mishcon evidence. In the film version, Mishcon and his interview/evidence aren't portrayed or mentioned.
Here's the film's Wikipedia synopsis, verbatim:
QUOTE:
A former nude model and prostitute, Ruth is manageress of a drinking
club in London that has racing drivers as its main clients. Ruth lives
in a flat above the bar with her illegitimate son Andy. Another child is
in the custody of her estranged husband's family.
In the club, she meets David, an immature, young man from a well-off
family who wants to succeed in motor racing but suffers from lack of
money and overuse of alcohol. Ruth falls for his looks and charm, but it
is a doomed relationship. Without a job, he cannot afford to marry her,
and his family would never accept her. When he makes a drunken scene in
the club, she is discharged from her job, which means that she is made homeless.
Desmond, a wealthy admirer, secures a flat for her and her son, but she
still sees David. When she tells him she is pregnant, he does nothing
about it, and she miscarries. Distraught, she goes to a house in
Hampstead where she believes David is at a party. He comes out and goes
with a girl to a pub. Ruth waits outside the pub, and when he emerges,
she shoots him dead with four shots. She is arrested, tried and hanged. ENDQUOTE
Nothing about Cussen's driving her to the scene and a strong implication
that she made her own way from the third party girl's flat to the
Magdala pub.
And nothing about Blakeley's assault upon Ellis, causing the miscarriage.
I hope this is taken as an answer to BB as well.
On 27 Mar 2025 at 20:13:32 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 27/03/2025 08:58 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 27/03/2025 08:37, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m4ickjFatsqU2@mid.individual.net...
On 25/03/2025 09:24 PM, Brian wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Brian" <noinv@lid.org> wrote in message
news:vrunjt$3p04a$1@dont-email.me...
Far simpler just to bring back the death penalty.
Indeed. If they'd hung Lucy Letby there wouldn't have been
any need for all these stupid articles and enquiries.
She would already have been long forgotten by now,
Same as the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four.
As the former Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning said, if they'd
have been hung, whether guilty or not, there would have been no
need for all those Appeals
quote:
"Hanging ought to be retained for murder most foul. We shouldn't have >>>>>>> all these campaigns to get the Birmingham Six released if they'd been >>>>>>> hanged. They'd have been forgotten,
:unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Denning,_Baron_Denning
Forgotten indeed.
"Forgive and Forget" being of course the motto of the IRA
I see the Ellis case is back in the media.
Somewhat "sexed up", though.
Refreshing the memory from the Wikipedia account
quote:
Ruth took a .38 calibre Smith & Wesson Victory Model revolver from her >>>> handbag and fired five shots at Blakely. The first shot missed. Ruth
pursued
Blakely as he started to run around the car, firing a second shot
which caused
him to collapse onto the pavement. She then stood over him and fired
three
more bullets, with one fired less than half an inch from his back,
leaving powder
burns on his skin.
[...]
At Hampstead police station, Ruth appeared to be calm and not
obviously under
the influence of drink or drugs.
[...]
Ruth was twice examined by principal Medical Officer, M. R. Penry
Williams,
who failed to find evidence of mental illness; an electroencephalograph >>>> examination on 3 May found no abnormality. While on remand, Ruth was
examined
by psychiatrist Duncan Whittaker for the defence and by Alexander Dalzell >>>> on behalf of the Home Office. Neither found evidence of insanity.
[...]
On 20 June 1955, Ruth appeared in the Number One Court at the Old
Bailey, London,
before Mr Justice Havers. She was dressed in a black suit and white
silk blouse with
freshly bleached and coiffured blonde hair. Her defending counsel,
Aubrey Melford
Stevenson, supported by Sebag Shaw and Peter Rawlinson, expressed
concern about
her appearance (and dyed blonde hair) but she did not alter it to
appear less
striking.
[...]
The only question put to Ruth by prosecutor Christmas Humphreys was,
"When
you fired the revolver at close range into the body of David Blakely,
what did you
intend to do?"; her answer was, "It's obvious when I shot him I
intended to kill him."
This reply guaranteed a guilty verdict and the mandatory death
sentence. The jury
took twenty minutes to convict her.[20]
[..]
Ruth remained at Holloway Prison while awaiting execution. She told
her mother
that she did not want a petition to reprieve her from the death
sentence and took
no part in the campaign.
:unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Ellis
Reading all that, it's almost impossible not to conclude* that here
was a women
truly at her wits end as a result of her dealings with men. Who rather >>>> than
You say "with men" but I think it was just the one man, the murder
victim, Blakely. She was jealous of him and infuriated by his
infidelity. I think it is a modern construct to see her as a victim of
coercive control whose actions should be seen as involuntary.
There is a plan to try to get her a posthumous pardon. I feel sure it
has absolutely no chance of success. If Ruth Ellis was alive and could
be consulted I think she would disapprove.
see
https://www.legalcheek.com/2025/03/london-law-firm-mishcon-pursues-pardon-for-the-last-woman-hanged-in-the-uk/
It rather looks like a virtue-signalling and publicity-seeking move.
simply stick her head in a gas oven ** in some anonymous bedsit, and
slip away
quietly, totally and conveniently unnoticed, decided to first seek
revenge and
then rather than doing it herself, get the job done by a real
professional.
In the process thereby gaining for herself the kind of immortality in
death***
which she'd finally realised she was never going to achieve in life;
certainly
not in her stillborn showbiz career.
Is that the line being taken in the TV dramatisation ?
Clearly she could represent a feminist icon of sorts but I somehow doubt >>>> that any TV dramatisation is ever going to stop succeeding generations of >>>> abusive boyfriends or husbands in their tracks, somehow.
Apparently according to PE at least the compensation payments for wrongly >>>> convicted postmasters are rapidly losing momentum, as the TV
dramatisation
of their plight, fades in the collective consciousness.
While as the law stood, and stands there clearly have never been any real >>>> grounds for a pardon. It would be interesting to know on what grounds
quote:
in 2003 [the case] was referred back to the Court of Appeal by the
Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC)
unquote:
When truly deserving cases apparently go begging for want of resources. >>>>
One real irony being perhaps that Ruth Ellis's execution possibly
contributed to the abolition of capital punishment but certainly
not for any reason *she* would have wanted. Because surely, while
desperately seeking some reason or excuse *not* to hang her, it
must have occurred to a least some of them, that here was a woman
who was actually determined to be hanged - with the actual collusion
of the State. And that the prospect of eight years in Holloway instead >>>> had the death penalty already been abolished, would have possibly
acted as a far greater deterrent, to any such overly dramatic
act of revenge.
I haven't yet watched the latest Ruth Ellis dramatisation. I enjoyed the >>> film years ago which starred Miranda Richardson. I'm very much anti-
capital punishment but posthumous pardons seem like a waste of judicial
time. And there would be worthier people to campaign for. Such as the
Irish republicans who participated in the Easter Rising in 1916.
The film "Dance With A Stranger" (1hr 42m), from memory, somewhat
underplayed the role of Desmond Cussen when compared with the latest
four episode (approx. 3hrs 10m net of adverts and three of the four sets
of credits) treatment.
It's a while since I saw the film, but I don't recall any narrative to
the effect that Cussen drove Ellis to the murder scene in his own taxi
(in use as a private car - something which was more common in that
post-WW2 age when cars were harder to come by than they later were).
Neither do I recall any great emphasis as to his having provided her
with the murder weapon and ammunition.
But the recent version made great play of all of that, which was at
least compatible with the Victor Mishcon evidence. In the film version,
Mishcon and his interview/evidence aren't portrayed or mentioned.
Here's the film's Wikipedia synopsis, verbatim:
QUOTE:
A former nude model and prostitute, Ruth is manageress of a drinking
club in London that has racing drivers as its main clients. Ruth lives
in a flat above the bar with her illegitimate son Andy. Another child is
in the custody of her estranged husband's family.
In the club, she meets David, an immature, young man from a well-off
family who wants to succeed in motor racing but suffers from lack of
money and overuse of alcohol. Ruth falls for his looks and charm, but it
is a doomed relationship. Without a job, he cannot afford to marry her,
and his family would never accept her. When he makes a drunken scene in
the club, she is discharged from her job, which means that she is made
homeless.
Desmond, a wealthy admirer, secures a flat for her and her son, but she
still sees David. When she tells him she is pregnant, he does nothing
about it, and she miscarries. Distraught, she goes to a house in
Hampstead where she believes David is at a party. He comes out and goes
with a girl to a pub. Ruth waits outside the pub, and when he emerges,
she shoots him dead with four shots. She is arrested, tried and hanged.
ENDQUOTE
Nothing about Cussen's driving her to the scene and a strong implication
that she made her own way from the third party girl's flat to the
Magdala pub.
And nothing about Blakeley's assault upon Ellis, causing the miscarriage.
I hope this is taken as an answer to BB as well.
A film synopsis is hardly evidence either way as to what actually happened.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 32:57:53 |
| Calls: | 10,391 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,127 |