The Politics Thread

[Gravedigger]

So, Gravedigger, do you really dig graves?

"yeah, they're alright"

Nothing so romantic. Old service nickname that has clung on. There's a whole thread about it lurking somewhere, but it might be on the previous board.
Now. When I was in the navy..............

[Hoboh]

currently on offer in this great ideas generator...

Question

Which offences do you think we should remove or change, and why?

1. Decent doorstep rubbish collections with no petty rules, charges or penalties YES (READ THE QUESTION THICKO!)
2. Human Rights Act 1998 REMOVE IT AT ONCE (That is hardly an "offence")
3. Change Countryside Rights of Way Act (CROW) to allow responsible river access Let them swim4. Bring back the Death Sentence What do you think Churchill? Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yesssssssssssssssssssssss
ok Cleggy - what next??

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ampaigners

An astonishing, dreadful decision by the court.

[thebish]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ampaigners

An astonishing, dreadful decision by the court.

found not guilty by a jury - isn't that how the law works in the UK?

[CAPSLOCK]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ampaigners

An astonishing, dreadful decision by the court.

found not guilty by a jury - isn't that how the law works in the UK?

I hope they go in again and get their arms and legs blown off

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ampaigners

An astonishing, dreadful decision by the court.

found not guilty by a jury - isn't that how the law works in the UK?

Well apparently so!

Of course, juries are just simple fact finders and are heavily directed on the actual legal question of what can constitute 'lawful excuse'.

I find it amazing that one can cause a lot of damage to a factory operating lawfully, with impunity - don't you?

[thebish]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ampaigners

An astonishing, dreadful decision by the court.

found not guilty by a jury - isn't that how the law works in the UK?

Well apparently so!

Of course, juries are just simple fact finders and are heavily directed on the actual legal question of what can constitute 'lawful excuse'.

I find it amazing that one can cause a lot of damage to a factory operating lawfully, with impunity - don't you?

it wouldn't be the first time a UK court has come to such a verdict - so I'm not massively amazed, no!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

it wouldn't be the first time a UK court has come to such a verdict - so I'm not massively amazed, no!

Right, I can't be bothered looking into it, but you're right that there appears to some precedent for this.

I don't recall this kind of 'lawful excuse' defence faring so well in these sorts of circumstances when I studied criminal law five years ago, but maybe things have changed?

As I say, I find it amazing that our legal system condones this sort of vigilante behaviour, but fair enough if you don't!

[Gravedigger]

An extension of Greenham Common, Upper Heyford and Aldermaston. Trouble is, one day one of these groups is going to accidentally (one would hope) expose the core of something nuclear and claim they were "Decommissioning it". Or veggies destroying abbatoirrs, non smokers having BAT wrecked. Hopefully they will leave our forces suppliers alone until they are all back home. And this Green MP should now ask everyone if she has acted correctly.

[bobo the clown]

it wouldn't be the first time a UK court has come to such a verdict - so I'm not massively amazed, no!

Right, I can't be bothered looking into it, but you're right that there appears to some precedent for this.

I don't recall this kind of 'lawful excuse' defence faring so well in these sorts of circumstances when I studied criminal law five years ago, but maybe things have changed?

As I say, I find it amazing that our legal system condones this sort of vigilante behaviour, but fair enough if you don't!

I recall the same when some feckin' eejits broke into Faslane & damaged a nuclear sub.

If you've ever been on a jury you'll realise that '12 good 'men' and true' really means ;
"a couple of anti-society lefties who won't vote 'guilty' even if shown film of the actions being performed;
a couple of right-wingers who believe the perps wouldn't be there if they hadn't done it so fck 'em, why do I need evidence;
a couple who can't understand a blind word of what's going on;
at least one who resents being there ass they're losing money/missing a holiday/have piles;
at least two who are 'going large' over the responsibility and almost arm-wrestle for the role of chairman/woman/person; one who studied law to GCSE 20 years ago and thinks they're an expert in it all;
the one who thinks the Police are all bent and
the other who thinks the accused's eyes are too close together.

I leave you to gues which three of these I was.

Frankly, I'm surprised anyone gets found guilty of anything any more.

Decisions like this may be fun at the time but will slowly eat into the nature of the Jury process.

The green MP needs to realise, as she celebrates, that she may feel differently when someone who kills a black kis simply for being black gets off it as the jury has a few racists sitting on it.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I recall the same when some ffeckin' eejits broke into Faslane & damaged a nuclear sub.

Sorry - you mean you recall the defence working and the defendants getting off?

[Gravedigger]

AN elite unit of nearly 500 Special Boat Service commandos are to be drafted into Faslane nuclear submarine base to take on the small band of peace activists who have repeatedly embarrassed the military by carrying out multiple break-ins at the so-called "ultra-secure" site.

The decision to move the Comacchio uinit - a detachment of Royal Marines which is trained and manned by the SBS, the naval equivalent of the SAS - to Faslane in April is a considerable escalation in the way the military responds to the continued attempts by peace activists to see off Trident submarines.

This from 2000ad. Fortunately no-one has been killed yet, but it's only a matter of time.

[bobo the clown]

I recall the same when some ffeckin' eejits broke into Faslane & damaged a nuclear sub.

Sorry - you mean you recall the defence working and the defendants getting off?

I mean some people who patently broke the law, but had enough soft brained fools on the jury , who sympathised with their motives, that they were found not guilty.

Yep, that'll be the one.

[thebish]

it wouldn't be the first time a UK court has come to such a verdict - so I'm not massively amazed, no!

Right, I can't be bothered looking into it, but you're right that there appears to some precedent for this.

I don't recall this kind of 'lawful excuse' defence faring so well in these sorts of circumstances when I studied criminal law five years ago, but maybe things have changed?

As I say, I find it amazing that our legal system condones this sort of vigilante behaviour, but fair enough if you don't!

none of this amazes me.

This kind of protest is carried out precisely for the publicity a high-protest trial gives them.

They are quite prepared to be found guilty - I doubt they expected not to be. It isn't their fault they were found not-guilty - that's how UK law works - the case is put for and against - and a jury decides.

[Gravedigger]

In the last 12 years, court cases involving GM crops and nuclear, chemical and arms companies collapsed after protesters said they had followed their consciences and had been trying to prevent a greater crime.

· 2000 Norwich jury found Greenpeace director Lord Melchett and 27 activists not guilty of causing criminal damage to field of GM crops

· 2000 Five Greenpeace volunteers found not guilty of criminal damage after occupying incinerator

· 1999 Three women cleared of causing £80,000 damage to Trident nuclear submarine computer equipment

· 1996 Liverpool jury acquitted four women who caused £1.5m damage to Hawk fighter jet at British Aerospace factory

Just for illustrative purposes.

[thebish]

In the last 12 years, court cases involving GM crops and nuclear, chemical and arms companies collapsed after protesters said they had followed their consciences and had been trying to prevent a greater crime.

· 2000 Norwich jury found Greenpeace director Lord Melchett and 27 activists not guilty of causing criminal damage to field of GM crops

· 2000 Five Greenpeace volunteers found not guilty of criminal damage after occupying incinerator

· 1999 Three women cleared of causing £80,000 damage to Trident nuclear submarine computer equipment

· 1996 Liverpool jury acquitted four women who caused £1.5m damage to Hawk fighter jet at British Aerospace factory

Just for illustrative purposes.

indeed - hence - no amazement on my part.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

it wouldn't be the first time a UK court has come to such a verdict - so I'm not massively amazed, no!

Right, I can't be bothered looking into it, but you're right that there appears to some precedent for this.

I don't recall this kind of 'lawful excuse' defence faring so well in these sorts of circumstances when I studied criminal law five years ago, but maybe things have changed?

As I say, I find it amazing that our legal system condones this sort of vigilante behaviour, but fair enough if you don't!

none of this amazes me.

This kind of protest is carried out precisely for the publicity a high-protest trial gives them.

They are quite prepared to be found guilty - I doubt they expected not to be. It isn't their fault they were found not-guilty - that's how UK law works - the case is put for and against - and a jury decides.

I happen to agree - that most of these things are probably done as 'protesting' rather than genuine attempts to intervene in the commission of crime etc (the sort of thing old fashioned types like me think the defence of necessity should be reserved for...)

Bish, simple question - do you think the law should allow this sort of vigilante action or not?

[thebish]

it wouldn't be the first time a UK court has come to such a verdict - so I'm not massively amazed, no!

Right, I can't be bothered looking into it, but you're right that there appears to some precedent for this.

I don't recall this kind of 'lawful excuse' defence faring so well in these sorts of circumstances when I studied criminal law five years ago, but maybe things have changed?

As I say, I find it amazing that our legal system condones this sort of vigilante behaviour, but fair enough if you don't!

none of this amazes me.

This kind of protest is carried out precisely for the publicity a high-protest trial gives them.

They are quite prepared to be found guilty - I doubt they expected not to be. It isn't their fault they were found not-guilty - that's how UK law works - the case is put for and against - and a jury decides.

I happen to agree - that most of these things are probably done as 'protesting' rather than genuine attempts to intervene in the commission of crime etc (the sort of thing old fashioned types like me think the defence of necessity should be reserved for...)

Bish, simple question - do you think the law should allow this sort of vigilante action or not?

it doesn't does it? it's just that they were found not guilty.

[Gravedigger]

Now behave yourself or, as an atheist I'll come and nick the lead off your church roof and argue the lead is causing suffering to lead miners and their children.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

it wouldn't be the first time a UK court has come to such a verdict - so I'm not massively amazed, no!

Right, I can't be bothered looking into it, but you're right that there appears to some precedent for this.

I don't recall this kind of 'lawful excuse' defence faring so well in these sorts of circumstances when I studied criminal law five years ago, but maybe things have changed?

As I say, I find it amazing that our legal system condones this sort of vigilante behaviour, but fair enough if you don't!

none of this amazes me.

This kind of protest is carried out precisely for the publicity a high-protest trial gives them.

They are quite prepared to be found guilty - I doubt they expected not to be. It isn't their fault they were found not-guilty - that's how UK law works - the case is put for and against - and a jury decides.

I happen to agree - that most of these things are probably done as 'protesting' rather than genuine attempts to intervene in the commission of crime etc (the sort of thing old fashioned types like me think the defence of necessity should be reserved for...)

Bish, simple question - do you think the law should allow this sort of vigilante action or not?

it doesn't does it? it's just that they were found not guilty.

On the grounds that they had a lawful excuse?

Anyway, whatever - what do you think?