HUMAN RIGHTS?

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Possible; if so some of the pages a search turned up would leave the wires credit at the top. As it happens I work with a Reuters feed and they're far drier and less sensational than that, so someone's obviously taken the ball and run with it.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Possible; if so some of the pages a search turned up would leave the wires credit at the top. As it happens I work with a Reuters feed and they're far drier and less sensational than that, so someone's obviously taken the ball and run with it.

Yes, I didn't think it was Reuters' style.

A Google news search of the wording of the first line shows 397 articles, including one in the Times, carrying the same wording.

Click on the link..........


Just strikes me as being odd, especially given that it's such a poorly written and thought-out story (which, I would indeed say has mislead you as to the objectives of his lawyers, Tango.)

[communistworkethic]

The press writing for a story rather than to deliver the actual news?? Incredible!! That the story would create a knee-jerk, ill-thought out reaction is even more incredible.

[Bruce Rioja]

Ah, so your initial post was a thinly disguised excuse for a rant then. I noted that you'd simply copied the peice without adding to it so that you'd be able to say "but I haven't given an opinion". It was, of course, simply a matter of time before you popped, and hey presto.

That shows more than a little personal bias Bruce. You don't think so? , read your post again. Bit of a personal attack. Very "Commie". Time I had a break I think. Carry on.

Hardly. Simply an observation. Don't be so thin-skinned.

[Hoboh]

But who pays for all the malarky of the appeal and it's subsequent processing Mummy?

Well, the obvious answer in most cases is the state, which, of course, means taxpayers, Tango. Questions of money are very difficult in individual cases - the fact is that it is important to have a good criminal justice system as a whole, and that does cost money. Perhaps we do pay through gritted teeth for someone like Sutcliffe to have his sentence correctly formalised, but we do learn lessons in the value of getting these things right first time in the future.

The Law should be sorted to stop money grubbers (Lawyers/Solicitors) milking the legal system!! No doubt the bill will be footed by Joe Public who quite rightly expect a "life Sentence" to mean exactly that! ie it is what it says on the tin.
Why pass a life sentence if it does not mean life? Why not say 30yrs or 40yrs etc. The only way someone should get out other than carried out in a box should be after a judges min recomendation of time has elapsed.
Most legal beagles will defend the Human rights act because of the potential to earn a good crust defending and argueing over what the population as a whole find totally offensive.
A fair and just legal system would be one that an average joe could understand, not the prehistoric drival that exists now.

[BWFC_Insane]

But who pays for all the malarky of the appeal and it's subsequent processing Mummy?

Well, the obvious answer in most cases is the state, which, of course, means taxpayers, Tango. Questions of money are very difficult in individual cases - the fact is that it is important to have a good criminal justice system as a whole, and that does cost money. Perhaps we do pay through gritted teeth for someone like Sutcliffe to have his sentence correctly formalised, but we do learn lessons in the value of getting these things right first time in the future.

The Law should be sorted to stop money grubbers (Lawyers/Solicitors) milking the legal system!! No doubt the bill will be footed by Joe Public who quite rightly expect a "life Sentence" to mean exactly that! ie it is what it says on the tin.
Why pass a life sentence if it does not mean life? Why not say 30yrs or 40yrs etc. The only way someone should get out other than carried out in a box should be after a judges min recomendation of time has elapsed.
Most legal beagles will defend the Human rights act because of the potential to earn a good crust defending and argueing over what the population as a whole find totally offensive.
A fair and just legal system would be one that an average joe could understand, not the prehistoric drival that exists now.

What is an average joe?

I'm not any part of the legal system, but I dare say that you and I would have very differing opinions of how it should work hoboh.

Fact is, you can't always pander to what the baying seals want. Because often the baying seals aren't informed enough to have a sensible view.

I'm no expert, but this is one case that is drawn to the public eye, but I dare say there are a whole myriad of cases like this, where there is good reason for this point of law to be resolved?

[Lord Kangana]

I'm with Hobo.

The legal system in this country(and indeed any) is just another trade through which to make money. Theres no incentive for any organisation to self-regulate where a confusing system oils the wheels of commerce.

C'est la vie.

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm with Hobo.

The legal system in this country(and indeed any) is just another trade through which to make money. Theres no incentive for any organisation to self-regulate where a confusing system oils the wheels of commerce.

C'est la vie.

Right and I imagine that whatever you do, is done for free and in the public spirit?

We live in a capitalist society, anyone who has ever voted Tory or indeed Nu Labour has no right to complain about the fact that businesses and people are primarily interested in making money. Thats the world we live in and unless all of a sudden the socialist workers party or whatever they're called have a surge in voters, its unlikely that its gonna change.

[Hoboh]

But who pays for all the malarky of the appeal and it's subsequent processing Mummy?

Well, the obvious answer in most cases is the state, which, of course, means taxpayers, Tango. Questions of money are very difficult in individual cases - the fact is that it is important to have a good criminal justice system as a whole, and that does cost money. Perhaps we do pay through gritted teeth for someone like Sutcliffe to have his sentence correctly formalised, but we do learn lessons in the value of getting these things right first time in the future.

The Law should be sorted to stop money grubbers (Lawyers/Solicitors) milking the legal system!! No doubt the bill will be footed by Joe Public who quite rightly expect a "life Sentence" to mean exactly that! ie it is what it says on the tin.
Why pass a life sentence if it does not mean life? Why not say 30yrs or 40yrs etc. The only way someone should get out other than carried out in a box should be after a judges min recomendation of time has elapsed.
Most legal beagles will defend the Human rights act because of the potential to earn a good crust defending and argueing over what the population as a whole find totally offensive.
A fair and just legal system would be one that an average joe could understand, not the prehistoric drival that exists now.

What is an average joe?

I'm not any part of the legal system, but I dare say that you and I would have very differing opinions of how it should work hoboh.

Fact is, you can't always pander to what the baying seals want. Because often the baying seals aren't informed enough to have a sensible view.

I'm no expert, but this is one case that is drawn to the public eye, but I dare say there are a whole myriad of cases like this, where there is good reason for this point of law to be resolved?

What point of law??
the bloke got 20 life sentences running concurrently with a minimum of thirty years before his case can be reviewed and looked at.
That my friend is plain English coman sense and clear!

[Hoboh]

I'm with Hobo.

The legal system in this country(and indeed any) is just another trade through which to make money. Theres no incentive for any organisation to self-regulate where a confusing system oils the wheels of commerce.

C'est la vie.

Right and I imagine that whatever you do, is done for free and in the public spirit?

We live in a capitalist society, anyone who has ever voted Tory or indeed Nu Labour has no right to complain about the fact that businesses and people are primarily interested in making money. Thats the world we live in and unless all of a sudden the socialist workers party or whatever they're called have a surge in voters, its unlikely that its gonna change.

I don't mind anyone making a crust but cases such as this, Hi-jackers forcing planes to land here commiting CRIMINAL offences then argueing their human rights are infringed when we want to deport them after sentence, make a mockery of the legal system and should not exist for lawyers to make a killing at the Tax payers expense!

[Montreal Wanderer]

But who pays for all the malarky of the appeal and it's subsequent processing Mummy?

Well, the obvious answer in most cases is the state, which, of course, means taxpayers, Tango. Questions of money are very difficult in individual cases - the fact is that it is important to have a good criminal justice system as a whole, and that does cost money. Perhaps we do pay through gritted teeth for someone like Sutcliffe to have his sentence correctly formalised, but we do learn lessons in the value of getting these things right first time in the future.

The Law should be sorted to stop money grubbers (Lawyers/Solicitors) milking the legal system!! No doubt the bill will be footed by Joe Public who quite rightly expect a "life Sentence" to mean exactly that! ie it is what it says on the tin.
Why pass a life sentence if it does not mean life? Why not say 30yrs or 40yrs etc. The only way someone should get out other than carried out in a box should be after a judges min recomendation of time has elapsed.
Most legal beagles will defend the Human rights act because of the potential to earn a good crust defending and argueing over what the population as a whole find totally offensive.
A fair and just legal system would be one that an average joe could understand, not the prehistoric drival that exists now.

I'm not quire sure how respond to this sort of rant (post-modern reconstructionist drivel?). Theories that the law only exists to make lawyers rich is not a novel concept, but is certainly a naive one - does football only exist to make footballers richer than lawyers? A system that the average Joe could understand would likely be some form of rule dictated by mobs of average Joes visiting their version of justice on the innocent and guilty alike. In the end respect for the law and other rules prevents our society from mimicking other societies where demagogues or mobs engage in the grossest violations of individual rights. IMHO of course.

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm with Hobo.

The legal system in this country(and indeed any) is just another trade through which to make money. Theres no incentive for any organisation to self-regulate where a confusing system oils the wheels of commerce.

C'est la vie.

Right and I imagine that whatever you do, is done for free and in the public spirit?

We live in a capitalist society, anyone who has ever voted Tory or indeed Nu Labour has no right to complain about the fact that businesses and people are primarily interested in making money. Thats the world we live in and unless all of a sudden the socialist workers party or whatever they're called have a surge in voters, its unlikely that its gonna change.

I don't mind anyone making a crust but cases such as this, Hi-jackers forcing planes to land here commiting CRIMINAL offences then argueing their human rights are infringed when we want to deport them after sentence, make a mockery of the legal system and should not exist for lawyers to make a killing at the Tax payers expense!

But cases like this, allow precedents to be set, which are important in future cases that may be more "relevant" or "important" to the individuals concerned or the public as a whole.

[CrazyHorse]

I don't mind anyone making a crust but cases such as this, Hi-jackers forcing planes to land here commiting CRIMINAL offences then argueing their human rights are infringed when we want to deport them after sentence, make a mockery of the legal system and should not exist for lawyers to make a killing at the Tax payers expense!

It's not the lawyers' fault, they didn't pass the human rights act.

[Lord Kangana]

I'm with Hobo.

The legal system in this country(and indeed any) is just another trade through which to make money. Theres no incentive for any organisation to self-regulate where a confusing system oils the wheels of commerce.

C'est la vie.

Right and I imagine that whatever you do, is done for free and in the public spirit?

We live in a capitalist society, anyone who has ever voted Tory or indeed Nu Labour has no right to complain about the fact that businesses and people are primarily interested in making money. Thats the world we live in and unless all of a sudden the socialist workers party or whatever they're called have a surge in voters, its unlikely that its gonna change.

I think you've missed the point of this.

The laws of this country are made by Parliament (a public body), are enforced by the Police(a public body) and then tried through the courts(a public body).I know from my own experience of my own industry that self regulation is no regulation at all, because it serves the needs of the service, not the needs of those it serves. The legal profession is not entirely private, but you are essentially adding an 'x' factor into this system. Now it could be easily argued from the point of view that "who guards the guards?" in this respect (and I accept that) however many legal firms are not acting form an altruistic nature, and therefore it makes a mockery of the word "Justice" (its not a game, as Dylan once said).

And as for your first point, well it would take too long to explain on here, but whilst I operate a company in a capitalist environment, I'm also in the process of making a contribution back to my industry that will see little (if any) financial benefit to myself but which will address the needs of skills and training so lacking in it. Its not all about the money all the time, a point some would do well to remember.

[Montreal Wanderer]

What point of law??
the bloke got 20 life sentences running concurrently with a minimum of thirty years before his case can be reviewed and looked at.
That my friend is plain English coman sense and clear!

The point that he has a right to know the length of his sentence. The other part of his action is to get released by 2011. If we apply some English common sense we will discover that 2011 is actually thirty years after he was sentenced. So he is only asking for clarity. Still, I doubt he will get out when it is reveiwed.

[Hoboh]

I'm with Hobo.

The legal system in this country(and indeed any) is just another trade through which to make money. Theres no incentive for any organisation to self-regulate where a confusing system oils the wheels of commerce.

C'est la vie.

Right and I imagine that whatever you do, is done for free and in the public spirit?

We live in a capitalist society, anyone who has ever voted Tory or indeed Nu Labour has no right to complain about the fact that businesses and people are primarily interested in making money. Thats the world we live in and unless all of a sudden the socialist workers party or whatever they're called have a surge in voters, its unlikely that its gonna change.

I don't mind anyone making a crust but cases such as this, Hi-jackers forcing planes to land here commiting CRIMINAL offences then argueing their human rights are infringed when we want to deport them after sentence, make a mockery of the legal system and should not exist for lawyers to make a killing at the Tax payers expense!

But cases like this, allow precedents to be set, which are important in future cases that may be more "relevant" or "important" to the individuals concerned or the public as a whole.

That is one of the big problems with law!
How the hell can a starving peasant back in say 1768 who steals a cow for him and his family to eat have anything relevant to a toe rag hoodie ripping off your car?

[CrazyHorse]

What point of law??
the bloke got 20 life sentences running concurrently with a minimum of thirty years before his case can be reviewed and looked at.
That my friend is plain English coman sense and clear!

The point that he has a right to know the length of his sentence. The other part of his action is to get released by 2011. If we apply some English common sense we will discover that 2011 is actually thirty years after he was sentenced. So he is only asking for clarity. Still, I doubt he will get out when it is reveiwed.

Unfortunately doing the maths gets in the way of the pitchfork sharpening.

[Hoboh]

What point of law??
the bloke got 20 life sentences running concurrently with a minimum of thirty years before his case can be reviewed and looked at.
That my friend is plain English coman sense and clear!

The point that he has a right to know the length of his sentence. The other part of his action is to get released by 2011. If we apply some English common sense we will discover that 2011 is actually thirty years after he was sentenced. So he is only asking for clarity. Still, I doubt he will get out when it is reveiwed.

Unfortunately doing the maths gets in the way of the pitchfork sharpening.

No the thirty years is not the case here it's what clarification is the bloke after? other than yet another atempt by some in the legal profession to get a clear cut defenition of how many years a life sentance is.

[communistworkethic]

I'm with Hobo.

The legal system in this country(and indeed any) is just another trade through which to make money. Theres no incentive for any organisation to self-regulate where a confusing system oils the wheels of commerce.

C'est la vie.

Right and I imagine that whatever you do, is done for free and in the public spirit?

We live in a capitalist society, anyone who has ever voted Tory or indeed Nu Labour has no right to complain about the fact that businesses and people are primarily interested in making money. Thats the world we live in and unless all of a sudden the socialist workers party or whatever they're called have a surge in voters, its unlikely that its gonna change.

I don't mind anyone making a crust but cases such as this, Hi-jackers forcing planes to land here commiting CRIMINAL offences then argueing their human rights are infringed when we want to deport them after sentence, make a mockery of the legal system and should not exist for lawyers to make a killing at the Tax payers expense!

But cases like this, allow precedents to be set, which are important in future cases that may be more "relevant" or "important" to the individuals concerned or the public as a whole.

That is one of the big problems with law!
How the hell can a starving peasant back in say 1768 who steals a cow for him and his family to eat have anything relevant to a toe rag hoodie ripping off your car?

Er, because law deals with principles not specifics? Both examples you state are theft, that's the crime in question. In that respect the two case are the same, the era is irrelevant when considering the question of guilt. Sentencing is another matter all together and that take in to account the circumstannces of the crime to assess a tariff - these are guidelines dictated to teh courts and have nothing to do with the fundamental law which has been broken and nothing to do with laws passed in 1453.

[CrazyHorse]

What point of law??
the bloke got 20 life sentences running concurrently with a minimum of thirty years before his case can be reviewed and looked at.
That my friend is plain English coman sense and clear!

The point that he has a right to know the length of his sentence. The other part of his action is to get released by 2011. If we apply some English common sense we will discover that 2011 is actually thirty years after he was sentenced. So he is only asking for clarity. Still, I doubt he will get out when it is reveiwed.

Unfortunately doing the maths gets in the way of the pitchfork sharpening.

No the thirty years is not the case here it's what clarification is the bloke after? other than yet another atempt by some in the legal profession to get a clear cut defenition of how many years a life sentance is.

He wants clarification of his release date. What's the problem with that?
I want clarification of his release date too. Surely everyone wants clarification of his release date?